[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30737-30743]
[DOCID:fr29my08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28389; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD;
Amendment 39-15536; AD 2008-11-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and
-300ER Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in
the AWLs to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This
AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside
fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or
maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain
Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. That
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 28,
2008 (73 FR 10698). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require revising
the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating new limitations for fuel
tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
(SFAR 88) requirements. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require
the initial performance of certain repetitive inspections specified in
the AWLs to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision (TR)
09-014, dated December 2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9
of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document,
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision
February 2008 of the MPD''). The supplemental NPRM referred to Revision
October 2007 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision February
2008 of the MPD revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum
loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundle
installations.
    Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
AD to refer to Revision February 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a
new paragraph (j) to this AD specifying that actions done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Revision October 2007 or
Revision December 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding

requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this
AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-
20 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 were added in
Revision December 2007 of the MPD for Model 777-200LR series airplanes
equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank. We might issue additional
rulemaking to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an
optional action, operators may incorporate those optional AWLs as
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Operators should also note
that we might issue a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL
No. 28-AWL-19 and No. 28-AWL-20 into the AWLs section of the ICA and
the associated design change.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Support for the Supplemental NPRM

    Boeing, American Airlines, and United Airlines (UAL) concur with
the contents of the supplemental NPRM. The Air Transport Association
(ATA) agrees with the intent of the supplemental NPRM.

Request for Clarification of Paragraph (g)

    The ATA, on behalf of UAL, submitted a comment stating that there
might be a logic error in the proposed requirement of paragraph (g) of
the supplemental NPRM. UAL states that it understands that the proposed
action is to revise the AWLs section of the ICA to ``Incorporate the
MPD into the MPD.''
    We infer that the commenters request that we clarify the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We agree that clarification
is necessary. The intent of paragraph (g) of this AD is to require the
operator to incorporate Subsections D and E of Revision February 2008
of the MPD into the operator's existing MPD. We have deleted the words
``into the MPD'' from paragraph (g) of this AD to eliminate any
confusion.

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    The ATA, on behalf of Continental Airlines (CAL), submitted a
request to revise the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD to reflect the appropriate limits for
in-service airplanes. CAL states that the limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03
reflect factory limits, and that mandating those limits would result in
non-compliance and ground the Model 777 fleet. CAL states that the
limits in AWL No. 28-AWL-03 should be harmonized with the limits in
Tables 601 and 602 of Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM), which contain bonding resistance values for
in-service airplanes. CAL further requests that the new limits be
published before May 2008, so that operators have adequate time to
develop the necessary task cards before the required compliance time of
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    We agree that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Revision October 2007 of the MPD needed to be revised. Boeing published
Revision February 2008 of the MPD to specify the appropriate values,
which agree with the AMM. As stated previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (i)

    The ATA, on behalf of UAL, requests that we clarify paragraph (i)
of the supplemental NPRM. UAL interprets paragraph (i) to mean that,
prior to the accomplishment of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
supplemental NPRM, an operator is allowed to use alternative
inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration
control limitations (CDCCLs), which are not part of subsequent
revisions of Revision October 2007 of the MPD. UAL states that, if this
interpretation is true, then paragraph (i) might be in conflict with
section 121.1113 (``Fuel tank system maintenance program'') of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1113). UAL asks us to clarify
whether paragraph (i) suspends the intent of 14 CFR 121.1113 and allows
deviations until paragraphs (g) and (h) are complied with.
    We disagree with UAL's interpretation that this AD conflicts with
14 CFR 121.1113. The two requirements are entirely compatible. That
section requires that, no later than December 16, 2008, operators must
incorporate applicable inspections, procedures, and limitations for
fuel tank systems that have been approved under SFAR 88. The AWLs
required by this AD are a portion of the SFAR 88 documents approved for
these airplanes. Since the compliance date for this AD was chosen to
coincide with the compliance date for 14 CFR 121.1113, compliance with
this AD by that date will also be partial compliance with 14 CFR
121.1113, and neither that section nor this AD impose requirements
before that date. Paragraph (i) of this AD is also consistent with 14
CFR 121.1113 in that both prohibit changing the requirements unless the
changes are approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), which is the oversight office for this airplane model. No change
to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent Tools and Chemicals

    JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools
and chemical materials according to the component maintenance manuals
(CMMs). JAL states that normally operators can use equivalents without
FAA approval when the CMM specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL
also states that it has received further clarification from Boeing
specifying that unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number
or certain chemicals by name, an operator can continue to use
equivalent tools or materials according to the CMMs.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request and are working with Boeing
to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items
critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified
in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be
inappropriate.
    We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent tools or
chemical materials, operators and repair stations may use equivalents.
We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels
specified in Revision February 2008 of the MPD, including the use of
equivalent tools or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are
allowed. If the CMM does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be
used. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requests that we delete the words ``and
task card,'' unless the task card references are listed in Subsection D
of the MPD or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the
following sentence in the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System
AWLs'' section of the original NPRM: ``Operators that do not use
Boeing's revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and
task cards to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that
maintenance personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.'' ANA believes
that if a task card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note,
then highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are
already highlighted in the

AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the AMM. ANA further
states that the applicable task card references are not listed in
Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the original NPRM; they
refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult to
find out or distinguish the affected task card.
    JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is
to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an
operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing
from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not
responsible for the requirements of the AD.
    We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because
an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we
disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some
operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not
require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD
requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance
program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure
compliance with the new AWLs. In the ``Ensuring Compliance with Fuel
Tank System AWLs'' section of the original NPRM, we were only
suggesting, not requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs
into its maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards

    JAL requests that we clarify whether ``task cards,'' as found in
the ``Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the
original NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an
operator's unique task cards.
    We intended that ``task cards'' mean both Boeing and an operator's
unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever
type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would
not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the
CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs
into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.

Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators,
requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain
airworthiness limitation item (ALI) intervals with the applicable
maintenance significant item (MSI) and enhanced zonal analysis
procedure (EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777
airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI
intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among
other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection
intervals from 16,000 flight cycles/3,000 days to only 6,000 days for
Model 777 airplanes.
    We infer that KLM requests we revise paragraph (h) of this AD to
extend the compliance time to 6,000 days for AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No.
28-AWL-03. We disagree because we have determined that it would be
inappropriate to extend the inspection intervals. Given the safety
implications for these inspections, 6,000 days (approximately over 16
years) is too long, especially since these areas are accessed more
frequently than every 16 years for maintenance. Also, KLM did not
include any reliability information showing that the systems can
continue to safely operate between the proposed inspection periods.
However, according to the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we
might approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request
includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this
regard.

Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM

    JAL requests that we revise the original NPRM to require
incorporation of the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL
asserts that we have allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing
AMM allowing operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later
revisions. JAL states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators
cannot find what revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated
into the operator's AMM in order to comply with the proposed
requirements of the original NPRM. JAL also states that it could take
several weeks to incorporate the manufacturer's AMM.
    JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to
change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states
that the MPD notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or
practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must
be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane
model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also
states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's
procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL
inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the original NPRM
it is acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance.
    We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD
does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your
maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision
February 2008 of the MPD. However, complying with the AWL inspections
or CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM
revisions. In the U.S., operators are not required to use original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) maintenance manuals. Operators may develop
their own manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight
Standards Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators,
all of the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as
maximum bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The
FAA Flight Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that
contain all of the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no
need to require operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals.
    Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL
changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in
the ``Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of
the original NPRM: ``A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be
made without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an
appropriate FAA principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), by the governing regulatory authority, or by
using the operator's standard process for revising maintenance
manuals.'' If changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL,
they may be made using an operator's normal process without approval of
the Seattle ACO, as long as the change maintains the information
specified in the AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all
the critical information into the MPD. This avoids duplication of a
large amount of information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a
specific revision of the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those
CMMs. Any changes to the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO.

Request To Revise AMM Task 28-11-00

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding AWL No.
28-AWL-01, which specifies doing

repetitive detailed inspections of the wire bundles routed over the
center fuel tank and under the main deck floor boards to detect damaged
clamps, wire chafing, and any wire bundle that is in contact with the
surface of the center fuel tank. The AWL specifies doing the inspection
in accordance with Task 28-11-00 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states
that, according to the definition for a detailed inspection in the
Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) Participant
Guide, dated August 2007, a detailed inspection may include a tactile
assessment in which a component or assembly is checked for tightness
and security (to ensure continued integrity of installations such as
bonding jumpers and terminal connectors). CAL states that the
inspection for tightness and security might require the disassembly of
the wire installation, but that there are no re-installation procedures
in the current routine manuals. CAL also states that maintenance
personnel have to disassemble the entire wire bundle installation to
accomplish the detailed inspection in Task 28-11-00-210-801 of the
Boeing 777 AMM. According to CAL, this action, in the past, has created
more discrepancies with wire bundle installations.
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00 of
the Boeing 777 AMM to include procedures for re-installation of the
wire bundles. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be
revised. This inspection does not require any disassembly of wire
bundle installations because, as CAL points out, disassembly might
create an unsafe condition. The guidance for a detailed inspection
provided by the Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3) and EAPAS includes
a tactile assessment of bundle security, which uses the mechanic's
hands to pull on the bundle. A visual inspection is not sufficient. The
tactile assessment is intended to be a non-intrusive inspection. No
change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise AMM Task 28-11-00-210-801

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Task 28-
11-00-210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM for accomplishing a detailed
inspection of the wire bundles between the main deck and the top
surface of the center fuel tank. (Task 28-11-00 is referenced in AWL
No. 28-AWL-01 of Revision February 2008 of the MPD.) CAL states that
the task procedures do not provide specific details or information for
the wire bundle installation to ensure that maintenance personnel can
comply with the design requirements. CAL also states that the wire
bundle installation has been modified according to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-57A0050, dated January 26, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-57A0051, dated May 15, 2006. CAL states that it provided
comments to the NPRM that propose to mandate the accomplishment of
those service bulletins. (That NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-27042) was
published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2007 (72 FR 3956).)
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise Task 28-11-00-
210-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM to provide specific details for the wire
bundle installation. We do not agree that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to
be revised because specific design information is not needed for
accomplishing this inspection. The type and location of the wiring over
the center fuel tank can vary among airplanes, and these details are
not necessary to complete the inspection. AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is
concerned with wire installation failures that will eventually lead to
arcing through the top surface of the tank. That AWL and the referenced
AMM provide for the type of failures that might progress to arcing, and
any wire bundle in that area needs to be inspected. No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise AMM by Including Warning Statements

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment regarding Tasks 28-
11-00-210-801 and 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777 AMM. CAL states
that these tasks do not contain CDCCL warning statements to alert
maintenance personnel of their importance to regulatory compliance
requirements.
    We infer the commenters request that Boeing revise the Boeing 777
AMM to include warning statements as stated by CAL. We do not agree
that the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be revised because Step A.(1) of the
relevant AMM sections contains notes about the CDCCLs. The FAA and
Boeing chose to use notes, not warning statements, because we did not
want to undermine other sections of the AMM, which are not tied to AWLs
but are still necessary for maintaining the airplane. If CAL determines
that a different approach would work better for its maintenance
program, it can develop a different system with the help of its PMI or
PAI. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Publish Manuals for Maintenance Personnel

    The ATA, on behalf of CAL, submitted a comment stating that CAL is
concerned that not enough attention has been given to ensure that
specific detailed inspections are preserved for the long-term operation
of its Model 777 fleet. CAL states that, other than some generic
information found in Revision October 2007 of the MPD, there are no
published maintenance documents for continuous airworthiness available
to show each specific requirement as detailed in the airplane
production drawings, such as Task 05-55-54-200-801 of the Boeing 777
AMM. CAL further states that information detailed by the airplane
production drawing must be available in manuals that are routinely used
by the maintenance personnel. CAL asserts that making this information
available will prevent the inadvertent reversal of the designated
configuration, which could lead to violation of the supplemental NPRM,
in addition to compromising the higher level of safety intended for the
Model 777 fleet.
    CAL believes the current program, as provided by AWLs No. 28-AWL-01
and No. 28-AWL-03 of Revision October 2007 of the MPD, is not ready to
be implemented. CAL states that, if those AWLs are mandated as
proposed, CAL would not be able to incorporate those AWLs in its Model
777 fleet, and a high risk of future de-modification of the wire
bundles would exist for airplanes on which those AWLs could be
implemented. CAL recommends that we coordinate with Boeing regarding
the changes it requests in the previous comments.
    We infer the commenters request that we delay issuance of the final
rule until Boeing publishes manual(s) containing detailed information
for maintenance personnel to accomplish the required AWL inspections.
We disagree. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have
determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the actions
required by this AD must be mandated to ensure continued safety.
    The amount of detail within the Boeing 777 AMM needs to be
balanced, and it might not be the same for every operator. The FAA and
Boeing have worked together to define what design requirements need to
be included in the AMMs for fuel tank ignition prevention features. If
the AMMs are overly specific, they might be too voluminous to be used
effectively and would be prone to errors, since wiring installations
vary among airplanes. The amount of information needed to be

included in the AMMs will also vary among operators, depending on the
processes and training for a given operator. If CAL determines more
detailed design information needs to be included in its AMMs, CAL can
work with its PMI or PAI and Boeing to add that information. No change
to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts

    ANA requests that we delete the words ``Any use of parts (including
the use of parts manufacturer approval (PMA) approved parts),'' unless
a continuous supply of CMM-specified parts is warranted or the FAA is
open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the
operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the
``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the
original NPRM: ``Any use of parts (including the use of parts
manufacturer approval (PMA) approved parts), methods, techniques, and
practices not contained in the CMMs needs to be approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority.''
    ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs
cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component
vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep
its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to
ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component
vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied.
ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly
review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and
washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a
component vendor specifies the uncommon part to preserve its monopoly.
    We disagree with revising the ``Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank
System AWLs'' section of the original NPRM. We make every effort to
identify potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware
of any problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and
repair of certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-
service pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to
OEM procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs--including parts,
methods, techniques, and practices--at the revision levels specified in
Revision February 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as
parts approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. We expect that such
parts might be found to be acceptable alternatives.
    An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing
regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide
an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs
can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as
the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those
procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes
every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If
there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator
should include that information in its request. Operators should
request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures
from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order
to limit schedule disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Identify Other Test Equipment

    JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the MPD and
that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL
No. 28-AWL-03 would require using loop resistance tester, part number
(P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify
alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an
AMOC to use other equipment.
    We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot
identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some
are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating
data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the
Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02

    JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL
states that Chapters 53-01 and 53-21 of the Boeing 777 AMM specify
doing an inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank
according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that,
according to Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains
two limitations: Maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and
clamping, and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard
wiring practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not
necessary to inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank
according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the
center wing tank, unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are
changed.
    We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third
limitation: Verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank
are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-
11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the
inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and
clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If
any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be
detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by
AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection
for another 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever is first. No
change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs

    JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: ``An entry
into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective
action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as
the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that
are CDCCLs.'' That sentence is located in the ``Recording Compliance
with Fuel Tank System AWLs'' section of the original NPRM.
Specifically, JAL asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in
their recording documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording
document to call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs.
    We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it
agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and
task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording
documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the
applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they
must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate
FAA PMI or PAI, or governing regulatory authority. No change to this AD
is necessary in this regard.

Request To Clarify Approval of CMM Changes

    JAL requests that we clarify whether FAA approval is required for
changes to the CMM. JAL states that, when it finds incorrect
instructions, typographical

errors, or vague instructions in the CMM, it usually contacts the
component manufacturer about those issues and revises the instructions
in its own manuals. JAL states that those changes are not reflected in
the CMM until the component manufacturer revises the CMM. JAL requests
that we provide guidelines for CMM errors that do not require FAA
approval.
    Changes to the CMMs must be approved by the FAA, or governing
regulatory authority, before the revised CMMs can be used. No change to
this AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                             Cost per      U.S.-
               Action                  Work hours           Parts            airplane    registered   Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWLs revision.......................            8  None..................         $640          127      $81,280
Inspection..........................            8  None..................          640          127       81,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-11-13 Boeing: Amendment 39-15536. Docket No. FAA-2007-28389;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-171-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective July 3, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -
300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; with an
original standard airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5, 2007.

    Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or after December 5, 2007, must be already in compliance with the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those
limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness
certification of those airplanes.

    Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Service Information

    (f) The term ``Revision February 2008 of the MPD,'' as used in
this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated December
2007. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 777
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001-9, Revision February
2008.

Revision of Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating the
information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD; except that the initial inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD must be done at the compliance times
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Subsection D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--SYSTEMS,'' of
Revision February 2008 of the MPD.
    (2) Subsection E, ``PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive,
of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs
No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive, as identified in
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD, also may be
incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA.

Initial Inspections and Repair

    (h) Do the inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD at the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2), in accordance with the applicable AWLs described in
Subsection E of Revision February 2008 of the MPD. If any
discrepancy is found during these inspections, repair the
discrepancy before further flight in accordance with Revision
February 2008 of the MPD.
    (1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of external
wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing,
and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel
tank, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-
01. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified
in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i)
and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection
(resistance test) of the lightning shield-to-ground termination of
the out tank wiring of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
and, as applicable, repair (restore) the bond to ensure the shield-
to-ground termination meets specified resistance values, in
accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03
as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of
this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 days since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (ii) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision February 2008 of
the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO); or unless the inspections, intervals, or
CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 777 MPD Document, D622W001-
9, Revision October 2007; or Revision December 2007; are acceptable
for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Margaret Langsted,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (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 appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-014, dated
December 2007, to the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622W001-9, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09-014 is published as Section
9 of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document,
D622W001-9, Revision February 2008. (The List of Effective Pages for
Section 9 of Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622W001-9, Revision February 2008, contains numerous
errors. However, the revision/date identified on the individual
pages of the document are correct.)
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-11467 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 56453]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP20-59-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DETI--Modifications to GT&C
Section 42 to be effective 11/12/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/10/19.
    Accession Number: 20191010-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/22/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-60-000.
    Applicants: TOTAL E&P USA, INC.,Murphy Exploration & Production
Company.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Commission
Policies, Capacity Release Regulations and Policies, et al. of TOTAL
E&P USA, Inc., et al. under RP20-60.
    Filed Date: 10/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191011-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-61-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming 2019-10-11 GPS
to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191011-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1582-001.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing in Docket No.
RP19-1582-000 to be effective 9/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-62-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Negotiated Rate,
Conforming IW Agreement (Sequent) to be effective 10/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-63-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing to Incorporate Approved
Changes (RP19-1473 into RP19-1539) to be effective 10/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-64-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update to Non-Conforming
Agreements RW0068 and RW0074 to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5298.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-65-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Update (Targa) to be effective 11/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5360.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22969 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="23/11/2009 04:28:58 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13899-13901]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05086]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80185; File No. SR-ISE-2017-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Modify the Qualified Contingent Cross and Solicitation Rebate
Tiers

March 9, 2017.
    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 February 27, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II, 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 proposes a rule change to amend the Schedule of Fees
to modify the Qualified Contingent Cross and Solicitation rebate tiers.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, members using QCC and/or other solicited crossing
orders, including solicited orders executed in the Solicitation,
Facilitation or Price Improvement Mechanisms, receive rebates for each
originating contract side in all symbols traded on the Exchange. Once a
member reaches a certain volume threshold in QCC orders and/or
solicited crossing orders during a month, the Exchange provides rebates
to that Member for all of its QCC and solicited crossing order traded
contracts for that month. The applicable rebates are applied on QCC and
solicited crossing order traded contracts once the volume threshold is
met. Members receive the Non-``Customer to Customer'' rebate for all
QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders except for QCC and solicited
orders between two Priority Customers. QCC and solicited orders between
two Priority Customers receive the ``Customer to Customer'' rebate or
``Customer to Customer'' Rebate PLUS, respectively.\3\ Non-``Customer
to Customer'' and ``Customer to Customer'' volume is aggregated in
determining the applicable volume tier.

The current volume threshold and corresponding rebates are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The PLUS rebate is for Members with total monthly
unsolicited originating Facilitation contract side volume of 175,000
or more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                ``Customer to
               Originating contract sides                Non-``Customer to    ``Customer to    Customer'' rebate
                                                          Customer''rebate  Customer'' rebate         PLUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 99,999............................................              $0.00              $0.00              $0.00
100,000 to 199,999.....................................             (0.05)             (0.01)             (0.05)
200,000 to 499,999.....................................             (0.07)             (0.01)             (0.05)
500,000 to 699,999.....................................             (0.08)             (0.03)             (0.05)
700,000 to 999,999.....................................             (0.09)             (0.03)             (0.05)
1,000,000+.............................................             (0.11)             (0.03)             (0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to make two changes to the QCC and
Solicitation rebate. First, the Exchange proposes to aggregate volume
from affiliates in determining the Member's tier for purposes of the
QCC and Solicitation rebate. As proposed, all eligible volume from
affiliated Members will be aggregated in determining QCC and
Solicitation volume totals, provided there is at least 75% common
ownership between the Members as reflected on each Member's Form BD,
Schedule A. The Exchange believes that aggregating volume across
Members that share at least 75% common ownership will allow Members to
continue to execute trades on the Exchange through separate broker-
dealer entities for different types of volume, while receiving rebates
based on the aggregate volume being executed across such entities. The
Exchange currently aggregates volume from affiliated Members in
determining applicable fees and rebates, including, for example, the
Crossing Fee Cap,\4\ and believes that it is appropriate to now extend
this treatment to the QCC and Solicitation rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70873 (November 14,
2013), 78 FR 69714 (November 20, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the current tier
4--i.e., from 500,000 to 699,999 originating contract sides--and merge
this tier into current tier 5. With this proposed change, Members that
execute between 500,000 and 999,999 originating contract sides of
eligible volume will earn the current tier 5 rebates--i.e., a Non-
``Customer to Customer'' rebate of $0.09 per originating contract side,
a ``Customer-to-Customer'' rebate of $0.03 per originating contract
side and a ``Customer-to-Customer'' rebate PLUS of $0.05 per
originating contract side. The Exchange believes that this change will
incentivize members to execute more QCC and/or other solicited crossing
orders on the Exchange in order to qualify for enhanced rebates. The
new tier schedule and rebates are shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Non-``Customer to                       ``Customer to
               Originating contract sides                    Customer''       ``Customer to    Customer'' rebate
                                                               rebate       Customer'' rebate         PLUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 99,999............................................              $0.00              $0.00              $0.00
100,000 to 199,999.....................................             (0.05)             (0.01)             (0.05)
200,000 to 499,999.....................................             (0.07)             (0.01)             (0.05)
500,000 to 999,999.....................................             (0.09)             (0.03)             (0.05)
1,000,000+.............................................             (0.11)             (0.03)             (0.05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to aggregate volume amongst corporate
affiliates for purposes of the QCC and Solicitation rebate as this
change is intended to avoid disparate treatment of firms that have
divided their various business activities between separate corporate
entities as compared to firms that operate those business activities
within a single corporate entity. By way of example, many firms that
are Members of the Exchange operate several different business lines
within the same corporate entity. In contrast, other firms may be part
of a corporate structure that separates those business lines into
different corporate affiliates, either for business, compliance or
historical reasons. Those corporate affiliates, in turn, are required
to maintain separate memberships with the Exchange in order to access
the Exchange. The Exchange currently aggregates volume executed by
affiliates for other fees and rebates,\7\ and now proposes to similarly
aggregate volume executed by affiliates for purposes of the QCC and
Solicitation rebate. The proposed definition of ``affiliate'' to be
used to aggregate volume for the QCC and Solicitation rebate is
consistent with definitions used by the Exchange in other contexts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e.g., supra note 4.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
QCC and Solicitation rebate tier schedule are reasonable and equitable
as the proposed changes simplify the Exchange's tier structure, and
provide more favorable rebates to members due to the reduced volume
thresholds for achieving current tier 5 rebates. As explained above,
the Exchange is eliminating the current tier 4 and merging it into
current tier 5, thereby giving members a higher rebate for the same
volume. The Exchange believes that this change will incentivize members
to bring additional QCC and/or other solicited crossing order volume to
the Exchange in order to benefit from the enhanced rebates. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed changes

to the tier schedule are not unfairly discriminatory as all members
will be able to attain higher rebates by executing the required volume
of QCC and/or other solicited crossing orders on the Exchange.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change merely allows for the aggregation of volume from affiliates
for purposes of the QCC and Solicitation rebate, consistent with
treatment of volume for other purposes in the Schedule of Fees, and
with volume aggregation on other options markets. The Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees
and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes
reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2017-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-17. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-17 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05086 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1110A ) 1 Revision 1 August 2002 A ' 3.14 ( D 2 & d 2)

2 % ( t)( 3.14)( D) % ( t)( 3.14)( d) METHOD 1110A CORROSIVITY TOWARD STEEL 1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION 1.1 Method 1110 is used to measure the corrosivity toward steel of both aqueous and nonaqueous liquid wastes.

2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD 2.1 This test exposes coupons of SAE Type 1020 steel to the liquid waste to be evaluated and, by measuring the degree to which the coupon has been dissolved, determines the corrosivity of the waste.

3.0 INTERFERENCES 3.1 In laboratory tests, such as this one, corrosion of duplicate coupons is usually reproducible to within 10%. However, large differences in corrosion rates may occasionally occur under conditions where the metal surfaces become passivated. Therefore, at least duplicate determinations of corrosion rate should be made.

4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 4.1 An apparatus should be used, consisting of a kettle or flask of suitable size ( usually 500 to 5,000 mL), a reflux condenser, a thermowell and temperature regulating device, a heating device ( mantle, hot plate, or bath), and a specimen support system. A typical resin flask set up for this type of test is shown in Figure 1.

4.2 The supporting device and container shall be constructed of materials that are not affected by, or cause contamination of, the waste under test.

4.3 The method of supporting the coupons will vary with the apparatus used for conducting the test, but it should be designed to insulate the coupons from each other physically and electrically and to insulate the coupons from any metallic container or other device used in the test. Some common support materials include glass, fluorocarbon, or coated metal.

4.4 The shape and form of the coupon support should ensure free contact with the waste.

4.5 A circular specimen of SAE 1020 steel of about 3.75 cm ( 1.5 in.) diameter is a convenient shape for a coupon. With a thickness of approximately 0.32 cm ( 0.125 in.) and a 0.80 cm ( 0.4 in.) diameter hole for mounting, these specimens will readily pass through a 45/ 50 groundglass joint of a distillation kettle. The total surface area of a circular specimen is given by the following equation: 1110A ) 2 Revision 1 August 2002 where: t = thickness. D = diameter of the specimen. d = diameter of the mounting hole.

If the hole is completely covered by the mounting support, the last term in the equation, ( t)( 3.14)( d), is omitted.

4.5.1 All coupons should be measured carefully to permit accurate calculation of the exposed areas. An area calculation accurate to + 1% is usually adequate.

4.5.2 More uniform results may be expected if a substantial layer of metal is removed from the coupons prior to testing the corrosivity of the waste. This can be accomplished by chemical treatment ( pickling), by electrolytic removal, or by grinding with a coarse abrasive. At least 0.254 mm ( 0.0001 in.) or 2 3 mg/ cm2 should be removed. Final surface treatment should include finishing with # 120 abrasive paper or cloth. Final cleaning consists of scrubbing with bleach free scouring powder, followed by rinsing in distilled water and then in acetone or methanol, and finally by air drying. After final cleaning, the coupon should be stored in a desiccator until used.

4.5.3 The minimum ratio of volume of waste to area of the metal coupon to be used in this test is 40 mL/ cm2.

5.0 REAGENTS 5.1 Sodium hydroxide ( NaOH), ( 20%): Dissolve 200 g NaOH in 800 mL Type II water and mix well.

5.2 Zinc dust.

5.3 Hydrochloric acid ( HCl): Concentrated.

5.4 Stannous chloride ( SnCl 2).

5.5 Antimony chloride ( SbCl 3).

6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND HANDLING This method does not provide sample collection, preservation, and handling guidelines.

7.0 PROCEDURE 7.1 Assemble the test apparatus as described in Paragraph 4.0, above.

7.2 Fill the container with the appropriate amount of waste.

7.3 Begin agitation at a rate sufficient to ensure that the liquid is kept well mixed and homogeneous.

7.4 Using the heating device, bring the temperature of the waste to 55 E C ( 130 E F). 1110A ) 3 Revision 1 August 2002 7.5 An accurate rate of corrosion is not required; only a determination as to whether the rate of corrosion is less than or greater than 6.35 mm per year is required. A 24 hr test period should be ample to determine whether or not the rate of corrosion is > 6.35 mm per year.

7.6 In order to determine accurately the amount of material lost to corrosion, the coupons have to be cleaned after immersion and prior to weighing. The cleaning procedure should remove all products of corrosion while removing a minimum of sound metal. Cleaning methods can be divided into three general categories: mechanical, chemical, and electrolytic.

7.6.1 Mechanical cleaning includes scrubbing, scraping, brushing, and ultrasonic procedures. Scrubbing with a bristle brush and mild abrasive is the most popular of these methods. The others are used in cases of heavy corrosion as a first step in removing heavily encrusted corrosion products prior to scrubbing. Care should be taken to avoid removing sound metal.

7.6.2 Chemical cleaning implies the removal of material from the surface of the coupon by dissolution in an appropriate solvent. Solvents such as acetone, dichloromethane, and alcohol are used to remove oil, grease, or resinous materials and are used prior to immersion to remove the products of corrosion. Solutions suitable for removing corrosion from the steel coupon are:

Solution Soaking Time Temperature 20% NaOH + 200 g/ L zinc dust 5 min Boiling Conc. HCl + 50 g/ L SnCl 2 + 20 g/ L SbCl 3 Until clean Cold 7.6.3 Electrolytic cleaning should be preceded by scrubbing to remove loosely adhering corrosion products. One method of electrolytic cleaning that can be employed uses:

Solution: 50 g/ L H 2 SO 4 Anode: Carbon or lead Cathode: Steel coupon Cathode current density: 20 amp/ cm2 ( 129 amp/ in. 2)

Inhibitor: 2 cc organic inhibitor/ liter Temperature: 74 E C ( 165 E F)

Exposure Period: 3 min.

NOTE: Precautions must be taken to ensure good electrical contact with the coupon to avoid contamination of the cleaning solution with easily reducible metal ions and to ensure that inhibitor decomposition has not occurred. Instead of a proprietary inhibitor, 0.5 g/ L of either diorthotolyl thiourea or quinolin ethiodide can be used.

7.7 Whatever treatment is employed to clean the coupons, its effect in removing sound metal should be determined by using a blank ( i. e., a coupon that has not been exposed to the waste). The blank should be cleaned along with the test coupon and its waste loss subtracted from that calculated for the test coupons. 1110A ) 4 Revision 1 August 2002 Corrosion Rate ( mmpy) ' weight loss x 11.145 area x time 7.8 After corroded specimens have been cleaned and dried, they are reweighed. The weight loss is employed as the principal measure of corrosion. Use of weight loss as a measure of corrosion requires making the assumption that all weight loss has been due to generalized corrosion and not localized pitting. In order to determine the corrosion rate for the purpose of this regulation, the following formula is used:

where: weight loss is in milligrams, area is in square centimeters, time is in hours, and corrosion rate is in millimeters per year ( mmpy).

8.0 QUALITY CONTROL 8.1 All quality control data should be filed and available for auditing.

8.2 Duplicate samples should be analyzed on a routine basis.

9.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE 9.1 No data provided.

10.0 REFERENCES 1. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, " Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals for the Process Industries," NACE Standard TM 01 69 ( 1972 Revision), NACE, 3400 West Loop South, Houston, TX 77027. 1110A ) 5 Revision 1 August 2002 Figure 1. Typical resin flask that can be used as a versatile and convenient apparatus to conduct simple immersion tests. Configuration of the flask top is such that more sophisticated apparatus can be added as required by the specific test being conducted. A = thermowell, B = resin flask, C = specimens hung on supporting device, D = heating mantle, E = liquid interface, F = opening in flask for additional apparatus that may be required, and G = reflux condenser. 1110A ) 6 Revision 1 August 2002


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36765-36766]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-116-000.

    Applicants: Chestnut Flats Wind, LLC, Chestnut Flats Lessee, LLC.
    Description: Application of Chestnut Flats Wind, LLC and Chestnut
Flats Lessee, LLC for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Confidential Treatment and
Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG13-42-000.
    Applicants: SWG Arapahoe, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of SWG Arapahoe, LLC as an Exempt
Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2721-004.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Non-Material Change in Status Report of El Paso
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3077-002; ER10-3075-002; ER10-3076-002 ER10-
3074-002; ER10-3071-002; ER10-3079-005; ER10-3078-001; ER12-126-007;
ER11-2539-002; ER11-2540-002; ER11-2542-002.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC, CalPeak Power--Panoche LLC, CalPeak
Power--Vaca Dixon LLC, CalPeak Power--Enterprise LLC, CalPeak Power--
Border LLC, Tyr Energy, LLC, Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC,
Trademark Merchant Energy, LLC, Plains End, LLC, Plains End II, LLC,
Rathdrum Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status for the New
Tyr MBR Entities.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1652-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 06-10-2013 SA 2443 Term Duke-Energy-Gestamp Wind to be
effective 8/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1653-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Revised Affiliate Sales to be effective 3/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1654-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the OATT & OA re Up-to-Congestion &
Virtual Transactions to be effective 8/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1655-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the OATT Att Q to implement a credit
screen for up-to-congestion to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/10/13.
    Accession Number: 20130610-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1655-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Errata to Transmittal Letter in Docket No. ER13-1655-
000 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1656-000.
    Applicants: The Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: Interconnection Agreement Between Narragansett
Electric Co. and Blackstone to be effective 8/11/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1657-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Interconnection Agreements Between NEP and
Wheelabrator Saugus to be effective 8/11/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1658-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Virginia Electric and Power
Company of Generator Interconnection and Operating Agreement with
Industrial Power Generating Corporation.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1659-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the PJM Tariff and Operating Agreement re
CFTC Exemptions to be effective 8/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1660-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3572; Queue No. Y2-066
to be effective 5/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1661-000.
    Applicants: NEXTENERGY SERVICES LLC.
    Description: Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and
Blanket Authority to be effective 8/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/11/13.
    Accession Number: 20130611-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES13-26-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Supplemental filing Exhibits in support of May 28,
2013 Section 204 Application of Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 6/7/13.
    Accession Number: 20130607-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14572 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 32 (Friday, February 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10386-10388]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03338]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91121; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 7.35 and 7.35A

February 12, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 3, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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 Rule 7.35 regarding dissemination of
Auction Imbalance Information if a security is an IPO or Direct Listing
and has not had its IPO Auction or Direct Listing Auction, and Rule
7.35A regarding DMM consultations in connection with an IPO or Direct
Listing. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 17, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90387 (Nov. 10,
2020), 85 FR 73322 (Nov. 17, 2020) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2020, the Commission extended to February 15, 2020,
the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the
proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposal.\4\ The Commission has received no comments on
the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90723 (Dec. 18,
2020), 85 FR 84446 (Dec. 28, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

Rule 7.35--Auction Imbalance Information

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35 to eliminate, on a
permanent basis, the restriction on the Exchange disseminating Auction
Imbalance Information if a security is an IPO or Direct Listing and has
not had its IPO Auction or Direct Listing Auction.\5\ The Exchange
asserts that disseminating Auction Imbalance Information in advance of
an IPO Auction or Direct Listing Auction would promote transparency in
advance of these Auctions, which would benefit investors and other
market participants.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 73323. Commentaries .01 and .02
to Rule 7.35, currently in effect on a temporary basis through April
30, 2021, provide for the dissemination of Auction Imbalance
Information if a security is an IPO or Direct Listing and has not
had its IPO Auction or Direct Listing Auction. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 90795 (Dec. 23, 2020), 85 FR 86608 (Dec.
30, 2020).
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the proposed change, the Exchange proposes that the
Imbalance Reference Price for determining the Auction Imbalance
Information for either an IPO Auction or a Direct Listing Auction would
be determined in the same manner as currently provided for under the
temporary Commentaries .01 and .02 to Rule 7.35, respectively.\7\
Specifically, the Imbalance Reference Price for determining the Auction
Imbalance Information for a Core Open Auction under Rule 7.35A(e)(3) is
the Consolidated Last Sale Price, bound by the bid and offer of any
published pre-opening indication.\8\ Because this definition of
Imbalance Reference Price does not currently specify what the
Consolidated Last Sale Price would be for an IPO Auction or Direct
Listing Auction (which does not exist because the security has not been
previously listed on an exchange), the Exchange proposes to amend the
definition of Consolidated Last Sale Price in Rule 7.35(a)(11)(A) to
provide that: (i) For an IPO that has not had its IPO Auction, the
Consolidated Last Sale Price would mean the security's offering price;
and (ii) for a Direct Listing that has not had its Direct Listing
Auction, the Consolidated Last Sale Price would mean the Indication
Reference Price for such security.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 7.35A--DMM Consultations

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35A(g)(1) to provide for DMM
consultations with an underwriter or financial advisor for initial
listings and follow-on offerings.\10\ The Exchange represents that the
proposed rule text reflects long-standing practice relating to the type
of consultations that a DMM

may have with an underwriter or financial advisor.\11\ The Exchange
further proposes to specify that any such consultations may be conveyed
to the DMM via either a Floor broker or Exchange staff. The Exchange
represents that, as with current practice, the only consultations that
would be required in Exchange rules would be in connection with a
Direct Listing that has not had recent sustained history of trading in
a Private Placement Market prior to listing.\12\ The Exchange states
that it believes that this proposed rule text would promote
transparency and clarity in Exchange rules by specifying the existing
process whereby a DMM may consult with an underwriter or financial
advisor in connection with a security having its initial listing on the
Exchange or for a follow-on offering.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 73324.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-NYSE-2020-93 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \14\ to determine whether the proposal should be
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal, as
discussed below. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail
below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\15\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, 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. In addition, Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act prohibits the rules of an exchange from being designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 7.35A with
respect to the consultations a DMM may have with an underwriter or
financial advisor. The Exchange further proposes to specify that any
such consultations may be conveyed to the DMM via either a Floor broker
or Exchange staff. Accordingly, the Commission seeks public comment on
the nature of the communications permitted between the DMM and the
underwriter or financial advisor. Specifically, the Commission seeks
public comment on the following topics:
    (1) Should the proposed rule specify what is a permitted
consultation provided for in the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule
7.35A--that is, specify what is a permitted consultation ``to effect a
fair and orderly opening on the first day of trading of a security
having its initial listing on the Exchange or for a follow-on
offering'' \16\--so that the permitted consultations are limited to
conveying only such information?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Notice, supra note 3, 85 FR at 73324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Are there any types of information that the underwriter or
financial advisor should be prohibited from conveying to the DMM in
these consultations? Would any other types of limitations be
appropriate with respect to the consultations between DMMs and
underwriters or financial advisors?
    (3) Should a DMM be permitted to communicate directly with the
underwriter or financial advisor with respect to these consultations,
rather than through a Floor broker or a member of the Exchange's staff?
If so, what, if any, different restrictions should apply to such
consultations?
    (4) Should the Exchange's rules distinguish between DMM
consultations with underwriters or financial advisors with respect to
follow-on offerings for securities that have a market value reflected
in trading prices as opposed to initial offerings? If so, why and in
what way? What types of consultations, if any, would be appropriate for
a follow-on offering and why? Would the types of appropriate
consultations differ between a follow-on offering conducted through a
firm-commitment underwriting and a follow-on offering conducted through
a direct offering?

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \17\ of the Act or any other provision
of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do
not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that
would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\18\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \19\ Rule 700(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice
provides that ``[t]he Commission, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether any issues relevant to approval or disapproval
would be facilitated by the opportunity for an oral presentation of
views.'' 17 CFR 201.700(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be disapproved by March
12, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other
person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 26, 2021.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2020-93 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-NYSE-2020-93. The file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposal that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposal
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchanges.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-93 and
should be submitted on or before March 12, 2021. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by March 26, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03338 Filed 2-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P