[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15808-15814]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1253; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-080-AD;
Amendment 39-16629; AD 2011-06-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive detailed
inspections of the slat track downstop assemblies to verify that proper
hardware is installed, one-time torquing of the nut and bolt, and
corrective actions if necessary. This new AD also requires replacing
the hardware of the downstop assembly with new hardware of the downstop
assembly, doing a detailed inspection or a borescope inspection of the
slat cans on each wing and the lower rail of the slat main tracks for
debris, replacing the bolts of the aft side guide with new bolts, and
removing any debris found in the slat can. This AD also removes
airplanes from the applicability. This AD results from reports of parts
coming off the main slat track downstop assemblies. We are issuing this
AD to prevent loose or missing parts from the main slat track downstop
assemblies from falling into the slat can and causing a puncture, which
could result in a fuel leak and consequent fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 26,
2011.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this 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: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6440; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2007-18-52, Amendment
39-15197 (72 FR 53928, September 21, 2007). The existing AD applies to
all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January
11, 2010 (75 FR 1297). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive
detailed inspections of the slat track downstop assemblies to verify
that proper hardware is installed, one-time torquing of the nut and
bolt, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to
require replacing the hardware of the downstop assembly with new
hardware of the downstop assembly, doing a detailed inspection or a
borescope inspection of the slat cans on each wing and the lower rail
of the slat main tracks for debris, replacing the bolts of the aft side
guide with new bolts, and removing any debris found in the slat can.
That NPRM proposed to remove airplanes from the applicability of the
existing AD.

Comments

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

Request To Use Revised Service Information

    Boeing requested that the NPRM refer to Boeing Service Bulletin
737-57A1302, Revision 1. Boeing stated that Revision 1 of this service
bulletin will be forwarded to the FAA for approval.
    We agree with Boeing's request to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin
737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010. Revision 1 of this
service bulletin has been published and made available to operators.
There are no new actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010. We have revised paragraph (i) of
this AD to add a reference to this service bulletin.

Request To Allow Optional Parts for Installation

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member airline
American Airlines (AAL), expressed concern about the lack of optional
manufacturer part numbers, and/or optional specifications concerning
the parts specified in the NPRM. AAL stated that part
interchangeability is allowed for airplanes with the same design that
are not affected by the NPRM. AAL gave four examples:
     The NPRM allows only bolt part number (P/N) BACB30NR7DK12,
but bolt P/N BACB30NR7DK12 has an optional part P/N 114A4102-19, that
can be used on airplanes unaffected by the NPRM.
     The NPRM specifies retaining pin P/N BACP18BC03A06P only,
but per Boeing part data, P/N MS24665-300 is fully interchangeable with
P/N BACP18BC03A06P.
     The NPRM specifies to use lockwire P/N MS20995NC32 only,
but for airplanes unaffected by the AD, the use of cable assembly P/N
BACC13AT4K6 is allowed.
     Boeing Drawing 65-88700 allows the use of P/N MS20995C32
and P/N MS20995N32 in lieu of P/N MS20995NC32.
    AAL stated that the intent of the NPRM is not to restrict parts to
specific manufacturer part numbers when optional parts are readily
available. AAL stated that similar airplanes unaffected by the AD with
the same design allow for greater part equivalent/substitution options.
AAL requested that the FAA, in an effort to assist the operator for
compliance, include optional parts in the NPRM, or provide a global
AMOC for acceptable substitutes per Boeing Drawing 65-88700, which is
an acceptable specification interchangeability, or part substitution
per Boeing Drawing D-590.
    We partially agree with AAL's request that optional parts be
allowed for installation. The alternative lockwire part proposed by AAL
has already been approved as an AMOC for those operators who have made
the request to the FAA. Boeing has not requested approval of a global
AMOC for all operators. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to
specify that installation of stainless steel lockwire, P/N MS20995C32,
is acceptable for compliance with this AD.
    We disagree with AAL regarding use of the alternative bolt and
cotter pin. The alternative bolt was never produced and could be
removed from the Boeing drawing system in the future. The alternative
cotter pin proposed by AAL may require the use of special tooling for
installation on in-service airplanes. The cotter pin specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008; and
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2010; requires the use of a special tool designed to facilitate the
installation by the operators. Until an alternative cotter pin and
tooling are validated for use in maintenance facilities (as opposed to
the manufacturing environment), the proposed AMOC by AAL cannot be
approved. If AAL obtains additional data to support such a request, it
may apply for approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    We disagree with AAL's request to approve the use of substitutions
provided in Boeing Drawing 65-88700 or Drawing D-590. Boeing did not
provide us with information to ensure that these parts adequately
address the unsafe condition. In addition, Boeing has not requested
approval of a global AMOC for all operators. However, operators may
apply for approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

Request for AMOC Clarification for the Track Repair Requirements

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, expressed concern with
requiring an AMOC for repair of a hole larger than 0.5005 inch in the
slat main track as stated in the NPRM. AAL requested that the FAA
clarify the boundaries of the AMOC track repair requirements and the
method to identify the AMOC repaired tracks. AAL stated that the flap
tracks are fully removable from the slat and are fully interchangeable
with airplanes unaffected by the AD. AAL stated that the tracks do not
have unique identifiers (i.e., no serial numbers) marked on the track.
AAL stated that the requirement may also be interpreted as, for Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, listed
aircraft, repairs to the downstop hole (when greater than 0.5005 inch)
of a slat main track performed at any time during the life of the part
would require an AMOC.
    We provide the following clarifications.
    For clarification of the AMOC track repair requirements, the AD
requires that any time the fastener hole in an affected slat can is
oversized to greater than 0.5005 inch, the track must be replaced in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated
December 15, 2008; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision

1, dated October 18, 2010; or repaired in accordance with paragraph (j)
of this AD. AMOCs can be approved for airplanes included in the AD
applicability. AMOCs are not applicable to airplanes outside the AD
even if AD-related parts are rotated onto them. We have not changed the
AD in this regard.
    For clarification, the method to identify the AMOC-repaired tracks,
including the tracking of affected parts, is a requirement under Parts
39, 121, and 43 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39, 121,
and 43). Under these parts, each airline may develop its own unique
methodology to accomplish this activity per the procedures approved in
its operation specification. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request for Re-Evaluation of Out-of-Spec Hole Issue

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, recommended re-evaluating
the impact of an out-of-spec hole (hole larger than 0.5005 inch in the
slat main track), and recommended the FAA gather additional information
from operators concerning the out-of-spec hole issue.
    We disagree with AAL's recommendation. The proposal to provide and
gather operator data should be proposed to the manufacturer. Once
additional data are evaluated by technical specialists, operators may
request approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions specified
in paragraph (j) of this AD based on the new recommendation.

Request To Provide Reference in the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM)

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, expressed concern with
the bushing repair of the slat main track in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008. AAL stated
that in an effort to ensure compliance with the NPRM, this repair may
need to be referenced in the appropriate CMM section to provide the
reference to the source of the repair data.
    From these statements, we infer that AAL is requesting that the
bushing repair provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
dated December 15, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010; be referenced in the appropriate
CMM. We do not agree with this request. CMMs are not regulated by the
FAA, and Boeing does not provide us with information to ensure that
these documents remain unchanged and thus adequately address the unsafe
condition. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request That the AD Clarify and Highlight Only Specific Sections of the
Service Bulletin Affected by the AD

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, expressed concern
regarding the requirements in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, as proposed in the NPRM. AAL stated
that the NPRM may be misinterpreted in that ``all steps'' of that
service bulletin must be complied with. AAL requested that the AD be
clarified and highlighted to explain only those specific sections of
that service bulletin that are affected by the NPRM.
    AAL stated that panel open/close procedures and access procedures
(slat extension/retraction) should not affect the compliance with the
NPRM. AAL also stated that the actuator disconnection/reconnection and
slat removal/installation also should not affect compliance with the
NPRM. AAL stated that clarification may be made with the following
statement: ``Only the service bulletin procedures specified by the AD
are affected by the AD. Other procedures described by the service
bulletin not specified by the AD are not affected by FAA AD compliance
requirements.''
    We partially agree with AAL's request to clarify and highlight only
specific sections of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated
December 15, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2010; that are affected by the AD. For clarification,
the manufacturer revises service bulletins, not the FAA. When the words
``refer to'' are used in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
dated December 15, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010; and the operator has an accepted
alternative procedure, the accepted alternative procedure may be used.
However, we have changed paragraph (i) of this AD to delete reference
to the access and close sections of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008;
this AD now requires that the actions be accomplished in accordance
with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008; or Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010.

Request To Provide a Global AMOC

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, stated that Boeing issued
Service Bulletin Information Notice (IN) 737-57A1302 IN 01, dated
February 25, 2009, to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated
December 15, 2008. AAL stated that Boeing Service Bulletin IN 737-
57A1302 IN 01 provides additional instructions to install the guide
bolts and reassemble the track downstop hole. AAL stated that Boeing
Service Bulletin IN 737-57A1302 IN 01 also provides additional
instructions for access and panel reinstallation. AAL requested that
Boeing Service Bulletin IN 737-57A1302 IN 01 be approved as a global
AMOC, or be incorporated as an option into the AD requirements to allow
the operator to use the best practices to accomplish the job.
    We do not agree with this request. We note that a global AMOC
already has been approved under FAA Letter 120S-09-528, dated September
16, 2009, for Boeing Service Bulletin IN 737-57A1302 IN 01, dated
February 25, 2009, and paragraph (i) of this AD has been revised to
include reference to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2010, which includes the information provided in that
information notice. AAL may request a copy of this global AMOC from
Boeing.

Request for Validation of the Service Bulletin Instructions To Be
Accomplished

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, expressed concern that a
validation program was not performed on Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, to ensure that data,
instructions, and processes specified in that service bulletin are
correct, clear, appropriate, and understood by maintenance personnel
performing the work.
    From this statement we infer that AAL is requesting that validation
of the instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated
December 15, 2008, be accomplished. We partially agree with AAL's
request. We have confirmed that validation of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, was completed in
December 2009. Operators may obtain further details of the validation
from Boeing. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Service Information To Include Steps To Re-Install
Slat Can Assembly and Access Panels (If Removed)

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, stated that there are no
steps in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15,
2008, to install the slat can, if removed, in

accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008. AAL
requested that to ensure compliance with the AD, a step, ``If removed,
install slat, refer to AMM 27-81-21,'' be included in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, in the
appropriate location.
    AAL also stated that there is no procedure referenced in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, to
reinstall the access panels removed from the lower leading edge of the
wing. AAL stated that to ensure compliance with the AD, a step,
``reinstall the panels that were removed from the lower leading edge of
the wing, refer to AMM 27-81-21,'' be included in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, in the appropriate
location.
    We disagree with AAL's request. For clarification, the
manufacturer, not the FAA, revises service bulletins. Part 3.B.3.b. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1302, dated December 15, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010; specify that the airplane
be returned ``to a serviceable condition,'' and accomplishment of this
step would require reinstallation of any components that were removed
from the airplane. When the words ``refer to'' are used in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008; and Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010; and
the operator has an accepted alternative procedure, the accepted
alternative procedure can be used to accomplish reinstalling the slat
can assembly and access panels. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010, does include new phrasing similar
to that requested by AAL. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for an Optional Requirement to the AD

    ATA, on behalf of its member airline AAL, expressed concern with
the measurement requirements of the slat track hole diameter. AAL
requested that Boeing and/or the FAA provide an optional requirement to
this AD, or a global AMOC, to allow use of a ``no-go'' type gauge or
similar device and the associated procedure to establish hole size. AAL
also requested providing an additional (initial) procedure consistent
with using common maintenance measurement tools to better allow the
operator to comply with these requirements. AAL stated that Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, states
that if the bolt has side-to-side play in the hole, then measure the
hole. AAL stated that the allowable measurement is four decimal places
of accuracy (0.XXXX). AAL stated that this dimension is in Boeing
Assembly Drawing 114A7511 specification for the purpose of
manufacturing the part in a machine shop setting. AAL also stated that
since this task is intended to be accomplished on wing, or slat removed
(on bench) in a dock maintenance setting, it is not practical and may
not be feasible to require measurement within four decimal places. AAL
stated that the methods to machine to four decimal place accuracy are
different from the requirement to measure to four decimal place
accuracy. AAL stated that typical tools used in a maintenance setting
would be a ball/T gauge, micrometer, and a vernier caliper in certain
situations (hole not near minimum/maximum limits). AAL also stated that
using these tools on the wing could result in inaccuracy due to the
difficulty of the measuring location and the access to the location.
    We disagree with AAL's requests to provide an optional requirement
to this AD or a global AMOC to allow the use of a ``no-go'' type gauge
or similar device and the associated procedure to establish hole size.
We also disagree with AAL to add a procedure using common maintenance
measurement tools.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008;
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2010; nor this AD; specify which tools are to be used to measure the
hole size. In the absence of specific instructions on how to perform a
maintenance task, operators have the discretion of developing their own
procedures to enable their maintenance personnel to meet the
requirements of this AD. In addition, it is the intent of this AD that
the operators develop their own procedures to perform a routine
maintenance task, such as drilling the close ream hole. Operators are
referred to the manufacturer's maintenance procedures, which are
published in formats such as the structural repair manual, the standard
overhaul practices manual, component maintenance manuals, and other
available resources. For further instruction, these maintenance
procedures are best obtained from these resources. We have not changed
the AD in this regard.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify
model designations as published in the most recent type certificate
data sheet for the affected models.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been 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.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,699 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average                                  Number of
                                   Work      labor                                     U.S.-
            Action                hours     rate per    Parts    Cost per airplane  registered     Fleet cost
                                              hour                                   airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Torquing                 8        $85         $0  $680, per                 853  $580,040, per
 (required by AD 2007-18-52).                                     inspection cycle.              inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Inspection and Modification            18         85      5,388  $6,918...........         853  $5,901,054.
 (new actions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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

    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
removing amendment 39-15197 (72 FR 53928, September 21, 2007) and by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2011-06-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16629. Docket No. FAA-
2009-1253; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-080-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective April 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-18-52, Amendment 39-15197.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of parts coming off the main
slat track downstop assemblies. The Federal Aviation Administration
is issuing this AD to prevent loose or missing parts from the main
slat track downstop assemblies from falling into the slat can and
causing a puncture, which could result in a fuel leak and consequent
fire.

Compliance

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

Restatement of AD 2007-18-52, With No Changes

    Note 1: Paragraph (g) of this AD merely restates the
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of emergency AD 2007-18-51 (which
was superseded by AD 2007-18-52). As allowed by the phrase, ``unless
the actions have already been done,'' if the applicable initial
inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of emergency AD 2007-18-51
have already been done, this AD does not require that those
inspections be repeated until the repetitive interval of 3,000
flight cycles.

Repetitive Detailed Inspections

    (g) Within 10 days after September 26, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-18-52): Do a detailed inspection or a borescope
inspection of each main slat track downstop assembly to verify
proper installation of the slat track hardware (i.e., the bolt,
washers, downstops, stop location, and nut shown in Figure 1 of
Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-57-084-B, dated July 10, 2007, and in
this AD). Proper installation of the sleeve need not be confirmed,
and the stop location part may be installed on either the inboard or
the outboard side of the slat track. If any part is missing or is
installed improperly, before further flight, install a new or
serviceable part using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD; and do a detailed
inspection of the inside of the slat can for foreign object debris
(FOD) and damage. Before further flight, remove any FOD found and
repair any damage found using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Verify proper
installation; install a new or serviceable part; and inspect for
damage and FOD, and remove FOD and repair damage; in accordance with
a method by approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA; or in accordance with Boeing Multi Operator Message
Number 1-523812011-1, issued August 25, 2007, or 1-527463441-1,
issued August 28, 2007. Repeat the actions required by paragraph (g)
of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles.

    Note 2: Paragraph (h) of this AD merely restates the
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of emergency AD 2007-18-51. As
allowed by the phrase, ``unless the actions have already been
done,'' if the torque application required by paragraph (f)(2) of AD
emergency 2007-18-51 has already been done, this AD does not require
that the torque application be repeated.

One-Time Torquing

    (h) Within 24 days after receipt of emergency AD 2007-18-51:
Apply a torque between 50 to 80 inch-pounds to the nut. The bolt
head must be held with the torque applied to the nut.

    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.''

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22MR11.075

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

New Requirements of This AD

Modification and Inspection

    (i) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD:
Replace the hardware of the down stop assembly with new hardware, do
a detailed inspection or a borescope inspection of the slat cans on
each wing and the lower rail of the slat main tracks for debris, and
replace the bolts of the aft side guide with new bolts, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008; or
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2010; except, where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated
December 15, 2008, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision
1, dated October 18, 2010, specify to replace the slat main track or
to contact Boeing for further repair instructions if the hole
diameter is greater than 0.5005 inch, before further flight, replace
the slat main track in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
57A1302, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010, or repair using a
method approved in accordance with the

procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. If debris is found
during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight,
remove the debris in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, dated December 15,
2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302, Revision 1, dated
October 18, 2010. Doing the actions required by paragraph (i) of
this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD. Installation of stainless steel lockwire having part number
(P/N) MS20995C32 is acceptable for compliance in lieu of lockwire P/
N MS20995NC32, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1302, dated December 15, 2008, for this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Or, e-mail information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-18-52
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone:
425-917-6440; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
dated December 15, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1302,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2010; to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 23, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5301 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71475-71479]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63324; File No. SR-ISE-2010-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Market Data Fees

November 17, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 4, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its fees for its real-time depth
of market data offering. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site http://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 self-regulatory organization 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
    ISE currently creates market data that consists of options quotes
and orders and all trades that are executed on the Exchange. ISE also
produces a Best Bid/Offer, or BBO, with the aggregate size from all
outstanding quotes and orders at the top price level, or the ``top of
book.'' This ``core'' \3\ data is formatted according to Options Price
Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') specification and sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Core'' data refers to the best-priced quotations and
comprehensive last sale reports of all markets that the Commission
requires a central processor to consolidate and distribute to the
public pursuant to joint-SRO plans. ``Non-core'' data refers to
products other than the consolidated products that markets offer
collectively under joint industry plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') approval,
the Exchange also offers a ``non-core'' data feed on a subscription
basis called the ISE Depth of Market Data Feed (``Depth Feed''). The
Depth Feed offering aggregates all quotes and orders at the top five
price levels on the Exchange, on both the bid and offer side of the
market. The Depth Feed offering consists of non-marketable orders and
quotes that a prospective buyer or seller has chosen to display. Depth
Feed, which is distributed in real time, provides subscribers with a
consolidated view of tradable prices beyond the BBO. Depth Feed also
shows additional liquidity and enhances transparency for ISE traded
options that are not currently available through the OPRA feed. The
offering is available to members and non-members, and to both
professional and non-professional subscribers.
    The Exchange currently charges distributors \4\ of Depth Feed
$5,000 per month. In addition, the Exchange charges the distributor a
monthly fee per controlled device \5\ of (i) $50 per controlled device
for Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal use
only, (ii) $50 per controlled device for Professionals who receive the
data from a distributor where the data is further redistributed
externally, and (iii) $5 per controlled device for Non-Professionals
who receive the date from a distributor. The Exchange also has a fee
cap currently in place where for any one month the combined maximum
amount of fees payable by a distributor is as follows: (i) $7,500 for
Professionals at a distributor where the data is for internal use only,
(ii) $12,500 for

Professionals where the data is further redistributed externally in a
controlled device, and (iii) $10,000 for Non-Professionals who receive
the data in a controlled device from a distributor. Additionally, in an
effort to accommodate a distributor's development effort to integrate
the Depth Feed offering, the Exchange charges distributors a flat fee
of $1,000 for the first month after connectivity has been established
between ISE and the distributor; the Exchange also waives all user fees
during this one month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``distributor'' of a Depth Feed is defined on the ISE
Schedule of Fees as any firm that receives the Depth of Market data
feed directly from ISE or indirectly through a redistributor and
then distributes it either internally or externally. A redistributor
includes market data vendors and connectivity providers such as
extranets and private network providers.
    \5\ A ``controlled device'' is defined on the ISE Schedule of
Fees as any device that a distributor of the Depth of Market data
feed permits to access the information in the Depth of Market Raw
Data Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In differentiating between Professional and Non-Professional
subscribers, the Exchange proposes to apply the same criteria for
qualification as a Non-Professional subscriber as the Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') Plan and Consolidated Quotation System Plan
Participants use. Accordingly, a ``Non-Professional Subscriber'' is an
authorized end-user of Depth of Market data who is a natural person and
who is neither: (a) Registered or qualified with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), the Commodities Futures
Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities
exchange or association, or any commodities or futures contract market
or association; (b) engaged as an ``investment advisor'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(whether or not registered or qualified under that act); nor (c)
employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under
Federal and/or state securities laws to perform functions that would
require him/her to be so registered or qualified if he/she were to
perform such functions for an organization not so exempt. A
``Professional Subscriber'' is an authorized end-user of Depth of
Market data that has not qualified as a Non-Professional Subscriber.
    The purpose of this filing is to lower the fee cap currently in
place for Professionals who redistribute the data externally in a
controlled device. Based on conversations ISE has had with prospective
subscribers, the Exchange believes lowering the fee cap for this
offering will lead to increased subscriptions. ISE therefore proposes
to lower the cap for these professional subscribers from $12,500 to
$10,000 per month. The Exchange is not proposing to make any other
changes to the Depth Feed offering.
2. Statutory Basis
    ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of ISE data.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on heir own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barak Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    ISE believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act reflect
Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the forces of
competition to ensure that fees for market data are reasonable and
equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly authorized
immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the
self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a policy and
subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other products
available to persons that are not members of the self-regulatory
organization must be approved by the Commission after first being
published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. ISE
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or
nonmembers, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover,
we believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that

reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure
equitable and reasonable prices. Simply put, the change reflects a
presumption that all fee changes should be permitted to take effect
immediately, since the level of all fees are constrained by competitive
forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (DC
Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' '' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.

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

    ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive.
    For the reasons discussed above, ISE believes that the Dodd-Frank
Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the
Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, ISE believes that
a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive
nature of the market in question.
    As recently noted by a number of exchanges,\10\ there is intense
competition between trading platforms that provide transaction
execution and routing services and proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution
service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic
example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on
which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the
platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees,
data quality and price and distribution of its data products. Without
the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to a posted order on
a particular platform, the posting of the order would accomplish
little. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist.
Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they
provide information that end users expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63084 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64379 (October 19, 2010) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise an
Optional Depth Data Enterprise License Fee for Broker-Dealer
Distribution of Depth-of-Book Data) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-125); and 62887
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 57092 (September 17, 2010) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Market Data Feeds) (SR-PHLX-2010-121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a super-competitive
increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the
potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' \11\ However, the existence
of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they
may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost
trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected
broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs
by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the
more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's

joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including numerous self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs,
TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently
permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do
or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex,
NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. The fact that
proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is
significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with
SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS
and Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary
book data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or
transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Market data vendors
provide another form of price discipline for proprietary data products
because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors
impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example,
vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data
they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will
not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to
attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue.
Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their
customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates
sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ,
these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse
to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide
sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data
products must understand and respond to these varying business models
and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products
successfully.
    Competition among platforms has driven ISE continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, ISE has developed and maintained multiple delivery mechanisms
that enable customers to receive data in the form and manner they
prefer and at the lowest cost to them. ISE offers front end
applications such as its PrecISE Trade application which helps
customers utilize data. ISE offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. ISE also offers an enterprise license option to help
reduce the administrative burden and costs to firms that purchase
market data. Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in
message traffic, ISE's fees for market data have, for the most part,
remained flat or, as is the case with this proposal, decreased.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ 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 necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 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 E-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2010-103 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-103. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions 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. Copies of such filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
ISE. 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-
2010-103 and should be submitted by December 14, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29402 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33745-33746]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Temporary Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

June 6, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for an amendment of license to
delete an island from the project boundary.
    b. Project No.: 405-069.
    c. Date Filed: May 15, 2006.
    d. Applicant: PECO Energy Power Company and Susquehanna Power
Company.
    e. Name of Project: Conowingo.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Susquehanna River in
Harford and Cecil Counties in Maryland, and Lancaster and York Counties
in Pennsylvania.
    g. Filed pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brian J. McManus, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> with copies of
all correspondence and communications to:
    Mr. H. Alfred Ryan, Assistant General Counsel, Excelon Business
Services Co., 231 Market Street, PA 19103,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and
    Ms. A. Karen Hill, Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs,
Excelon Business Services Co., 101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC
20001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Vedula Sarma<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests, comments:
July 7, 2006.
    k. Description of Proposed Action: PECO Energy Power Company and
Susquehanna Power Company, licensees for the Conowingo Project, seek
authorization to convey approximately 79 acres of project lands, known
as Roberts Island, by donation to The Conservancy Fund, a non-profit
corporation dedicated to environment and natural resource protection.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A
copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address
in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,

protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9100 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30070]
[FR Doc No: E9-14787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1284-000]

Rugby Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

June 17, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Rugby Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 16, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14787 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7813-7815]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0412]

Anthrax: Developing Drugs for Prophylaxis of Inhalational
Anthrax; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Anthrax:
Developing Drugs for Prophylaxis of Inhalational Anthrax.'' The purpose
of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of new
drugs for the prophylaxis of inhalational anthrax. This draft guidance
supersedes the draft guidance entitled ``Inhalational Anthrax (Post-
Exposure)--Developing Antimicrobial Drugs'' issued in March 2002.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the

instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-0412 for ``Anthrax: Developing Drugs for Prophylaxis of
Inhalational Anthrax; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph G. Toerner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Anthrax: Developing Drugs for Prophylaxis of Inhalational
Anthrax.'' The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in
the development of new drugs to be administered to persons who have
inhaled Bacillus anthracis spores, but who have not yet manifested
clinical evidence of disease, to prevent the development of
inhalational anthrax disease. We refer to this indication as
``prophylaxis of inhalational anthrax.'' This draft guidance describes
approaches for the designs of the animal model efficacy studies and
recognizes that drug development for the sole indication of prophylaxis
of inhalational anthrax is possible.
    This draft guidance supersedes the draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Inhalational Anthrax (Post-Exposure)--Developing
Antimicrobial Drugs'' published in March 2002 (2002 draft guidance).
The 2002 draft guidance stated that drugs for the prophylaxis of
inhalational anthrax would be approved under the accelerated approval
regulations (21 CFR part 314, subpart H, for drugs and 21 CFR part 601,
subpart E, for biological products), unless the drug already carried an
anthrax indication. Shortly after the 2002 draft guidance issued, FDA
amended its regulations to provide a regulatory mechanism to approve
drugs and biological products when human efficacy studies are not
ethical or feasible (part 314, subpart I, for drugs and part 601,
subpart H, for biological products). These regulations are commonly
referred to as the ``animal rule.'' \1\ This draft guidance states that
drugs developed for prophylaxis of inhalational anthrax will be
considered for approval under the animal rule regulations. Other
changes from the 2002 draft guidance are incorporated into the
appropriate sections of this guidance and are based on comments
received to the docket for the 2002 draft guidance as well as recent
developments in scientific information that pertain to drugs being
developed for prophylaxis of inhalational anthrax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The animal rule regulations in this guidance specifically
refer to part 314, subpart I, for drugs and part 601, subpart H, for
biological products. In October 2015, FDA finalized the guidance for
industry entitled ``Product Development Under the Animal Rule'' that
contains general information and recommendations on the development
and approval of products under the animal rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issuance of this draft guidance fulfills a portion of the
requirements of Title VIII, section 804, of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), which
requires FDA to review and, as appropriate, revise not fewer than three
guidance documents per year for the conduct of clinical trials with
respect to antibacterial and antifungal drugs.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding

on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 9, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02964 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5541-5542]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-
2016-0007]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 12
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 25,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322;
FMCSA-2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0007 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-2015-0323;
FMCSA-2016-0007), indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that
FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-2015-
0323; FMCSA-2016-0007, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When
the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0216; FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-2015-
0323; FMCSA-2016-0007, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document to
review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly,
FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and
decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 12
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 12
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the
State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an
adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes
that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of
two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of November
and are discussed below.
    As of November 4, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers: Joseph
Celdonia (MD); and Thomas K. Mitchell (MS).
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0216. Their
exemptions are applicable as of November 4, 2018, and will expire on
November 4, 2020.
    As of November 15, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Kevin Beamon (NY)
Joseph Drion (MO)
Marvin L. Fender (CO)
Robert W. Goddard (NH)
Michael C. Grant (SC)
Todd W. Hines (OH)
John A. Kangas (MI)
Chad T. Knott (MD)
Curt Palubicki (MN)
William M. Powderly (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2015-0322; FMCSA-
2015-0323 and FMCSA-2016-0007. Their exemptions are applicable as of
November 15, 2018, and will expire on November 15, 2020.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two
years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 1, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02964 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P