[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 966-970]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68554; File No. SR-EDGX-2012-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

December 31, 2012.
    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 December 26, 2012 the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to lower the default \4\ rebate at the top of
its fee schedule for adding liquidity in securities at or above $1.00
on EDGX from a rebate of $0.0023 per share to a rebate of $0.0021 per
share. This change will also be reflected in the following added
liquidity flags: Flags B, V, Y, 3, and 4. The Exchange notes that
Members will still qualify for all tiered rebates, as discussed in
Footnotes 1, 2, or 13 on the Exchange's fee schedule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Default'' refers to the standard rebated provided to
Members for orders that add liquidity to the Exchange absent Members
qualifying for additional volume tiered pricing. The Exchange notes
that Members may qualify for a higher rebate than the default rebate
if they satisfy the volume tier requirements outlined in Footnotes
1, 2, or 13.
    \5\ References herein to ``Footnotes'' refer only to footnotes
on the Exchange's fee schedule and not to footnotes within the
current filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the default rate for removing
liquidity from EDGX in securities priced below $1 from 0.10% of the
dollar value of the transaction to 0.30% of the dollar value of the
transaction.\6\ As a result of the increase in rate, all flags that
remove liquidity from the EDGX Book in securities priced less than
$1.00 would be assessed a fee of 0.30% of the dollar value of the
transaction. These include Flags N, W, 6, BB, MT, PI, PR, and ZR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This fee is consistent with the limitations of Regulation
NMS, SEC Rule 610(c), for securities with a price of less than
$1.00.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that the rates in the table of flags on
its fee schedule all apply to orders in securities priced $1 and
over and therefore, no amendment is necessary to the rates displayed
on this table at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For customer internalization, which occurs when two orders
presented to the Exchange from the same Member (i.e., MPID) are
presented separately and not in a paired manner, but nonetheless
inadvertently match with one another,\8\ the Exchange currently charges
$0.00035 per share per side of an execution (for adding liquidity and
for removing liquidity) for Flags EA, ER, and 5. This charge occurs in
lieu of the standard or tiered rebate/removal rates. Therefore, Members
currently incur a total transaction cost of $0.0007 per share for both
sides of an execution for customer internalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Members are advised to consult Rule 12.2 respecting
fictitious trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-EDGX-2011-13,\9\ the Exchange represented that it ``will work
promptly to ensure that the internalization fee is

no more favorable than each prevailing maker/taker spread.'' In order
to ensure that the internalization fee is no more favorable than the
proposed maker/taker spread of $0.0009 for the standard add rate
(proposed rebate of $0.0021) and standard removal rate ($0.0030 charge
per share), the Exchange is proposing to charge $0.00045 per side for
customer internalization (flags EA, ER and 5). However, if a Member
posts 10,000,000 shares or more of average daily volume (``ADV'') to
EDGX, then the Member would get the current rate of $0.0001 per share
per side for customer internalization.\10\ If this occurs, then the
Member's rate for inadvertently matching with itself decreases to
$0.0001 per share per side, as reflected in Footnote 11, as the Member
has met the least restrictive criteria to satisfy a tier. In each case
(both tiered and standard rates), the charge for Members inadvertently
matching with themselves is no more favorable than each maker/taker
spread. The applicable rate for customer internalization thus allows
the Exchange to discourage potential wash sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 64452 (May 10, 2011), 76
FR 28110, 28111 (May 13, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-13).
    \10\ EDGX has a variety of tiered rebates ranging from $0.0028-
$0.0035 per share, which makes its maker/taker spreads range from
$0.0002 (standard removal rate--Super Tier or 0.65% TCV step-up tier
rebate), 0 (standard removal rate--Step-Up Take tier or Investor
Tier), -$0.0001 (standard removal rate--Ultra Tier rebate), -$0.0002
(standard removal rate--Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032), -$0.0003
(standard removal rate--Market Depth Tier rebate of $0.0033 per
share), and -$0.0005 (standard removal rate--Mega Tier rebate of
$0.0035 per share). As a result of the customer internalization
charge, Members who internalized would be charged $0.0001 per share
per side of an execution (total of $0.0002 per share) instead of
capturing the maker/taker spreads resulting from achieving the
tiered rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, as a result of the change in the default rate for
removing liquidity in securities priced below $1, the Exchange proposes
to place the rate of 0.15% of the dollar value of the transaction per
share per side for customer internalization in securities priced below
$1 in footnote 11, which is appended to Flags EA, ER, and 5.\11\ As a
result, customers who internalize would be charged 0.15% of the dollar
value of the transaction instead of the applicable add or remove rate
for securities priced below $1.00. This proposed internalization fee is
no more favorable than the proposed maker/taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This rate is derived from calculating the spread between
adding and removing liquidity in securities below $1 and assuming a
security is priced at $0.99 and dividing that result by two (2) to
account for each side of the transaction. (0.30% x 1 share x $0.99)
-(rebate of $0.00003 per share) = $0.00294/2 =$.00147 per share/
$0.99 x 100 = approx. 0.15% of the dollar value of the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also provides, in part, in Footnote 11 that for flags
EA/ER (internalization), if a Member internalizes more than 4% of their
ADV on EDGX (added, removed, and routed liquidity) and the Member, at a
minimum, meets the criteria for the Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032 per
share in Footnote 1, then the Member receives the applicable rebate in
Footnote 1 for adding liquidity, or is charged the applicable removal
rate in Footnote 1. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate this
rebate. The Exchange notes that Members can still qualify for an
internalization rate of $0.0001 per share per side if they meet the
other criteria outlined in Footnote 11 of the fee schedule.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate one method to achieve the
Mega Tier rebate on its fee schedule. In Footnote 1, Members can
qualify for the Mega Tier rebate and be provided a $0.0032 rebate per
share for liquidity added on EDGX in either of two ways: (i) if the
Member on a daily basis, measured monthly, posts 0.75% of the Total
Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') in ADV; or (ii) if the Member on a daily
basis, measured monthly, posts 0.12% of the TCV in ADV more than their
February 2011 ADV added to EDGX. TCV is defined as volume reported by
all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to the consolidated
transaction reporting plans for Tapes A, B and C securities for the
month prior to the month in which the fees are calculated. The Exchange
proposes to delete the method provided in clause (i) of qualifying for
the Mega Tier. Members can still qualify for the Mega Tier rebate by
meeting the criteria in clause (ii), as outlined above.

Retail Order Ports

    In SR-EDGX-2012-47,\12\ the Exchange provided that Members were be
able to designate their orders as ``Retail Orders'' that add/remove
liquidity using the FIX order entry protocol (FIX) but not the HP-API
order entry protocol (HP-API) in order to qualify for the rates on
Flags ZA and ZR. The Exchange defined a Retail Order in Footnote 4 to
mean ``(i) an agency order that originates from a natural person; (ii)
is submitted to EDGX by a Member, provided that no change is made to
the terms of the order; and (iii) the order does not originate from a
trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.'' The Exchange
also provided that Members must submit a signed written attestation, in
a form prescribed by the Exchange, that they have implemented policies
and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that every order
designated by the Member as a Retail Order complies with the above
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68310 (November 28,
2012), 77 FR 71860 (December 4, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Retail Orders may be submitted by Members on an order-
by-order basis via FIX in order to qualify for the rates on Flags ZA
(rebate of $0.0032 per share) and ZR (fee of $0.0030 per share). The
Exchange proposes to amend the language in Footnote 4 on its fee
schedule to allow Members to designate certain of their FIX ports at
the Exchange as ``Retail Order Ports'' in order to qualify for the
rates on Flags ZA and ZR. The attestation requirement, as described
above and in SR-EDGX-2012-47,\13\ will continue to apply to all Members
who submit Retail Orders, whether on an order-by-order basis or via
Retail Order Ports. Members are not required to designate orders as
Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on January 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\15\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to lower the rebate from
$0.0023 per share to $0.0021 per share is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges as it will enable the Exchange
to retain additional funds to offset increased administrative,
regulatory, and other infrastructure costs associated with operating an
exchange. The rate is reasonable in that it is comparable to rebates
for adding liquidity offered by NYSE Arca, Inc. (rebates of 0.0021 per
share for Tapes A/C securities, $0.0022 per share for Tape B
securities) \16\ and on NASDAQ Stock Market LLC \17\ (rebate of $0.0020
per share). The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is non-
discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Arca Equities Trading Fees, http://usequities.nyx.com/markets/nyse-arca-equities/trading-fees.
    \17\ NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List--Trading &
Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.

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

    In addition, the Exchange believes that its proposal to increase
the default removal rate in securities priced below $1.00 from 0.10% of
the dollar value of the transaction to 0.30% of the dollar value of the
transaction is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges as it will enable the Exchange to retain additional funds
to offset increased administrative, regulatory, and other
infrastructure costs associated with operating an exchange. The rate is
reasonable in that it is comparable to fees for removing liquidity in
securities priced below $1.00 offered by New York Stock Exchange LLC
\18\ and NASDAQ Stock Market LLC \19\ (each exchange assesses fees of
0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ New York Stock Exchange Price List 2012, http://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_price_list_11_09_12.pdf.
    \19\ NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List--Trading &
Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increased fee for customer
internalization from $0.00035 to $0.00045 per share per side of an
execution for Flags EA, ER (regular trading session) and 5 (pre and
post market) represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges as it is designed to discourage Members from
inadvertently matching with one another, thereby discouraging potential
wash sales. The increased fee also allows the Exchange to offset its
administrative, clearing, and other operating costs incurred in
executing such trades. Finally, the fee is equitable in that it is
consistent \20\ with the EDGX fee structure that has a proposed maker/
taker spread of $0.0009 per share (where the standard rebate to add
liquidity on EDGX is proposed to be $0.0021 per share and the standard
fee to remove liquidity is $0.0030 per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In each case, the internalization fee is no more favorable
to the Member than each prevailing maker/taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increased fee per side of an execution on Flags EA, ER, and 5
($0.00045 per side instead of $0.00035 per side per share), yields a
total cost of $0.0009, thus making the internalization fee consistent
with the current maker/taker spreads.\21\ The Exchange believes that
the proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange will continue to ensure that the
internalization fee is no more favorable than each prevailing maker/
taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's fee for customer internalization for securities
priced below $1.00 of 0.15% of the dollar value of the transaction, as
represented in footnote 11 appended to flags EA, ER, and 5, represents
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as
it is designed to discourage Members from inadvertently matching with
one another, thereby discouraging potential wash sales. The fee also
allows the Exchange to offset its administrative, clearing, and other
operating costs incurred in executing such trades. Finally, the fee is
equitable in that it is consistent \22\ with the EDGX fee structure
that has a proposed maker/taker spread of 0.15% of dollar value of the
transaction per share per side, where the standard rebate to add
liquidity on EDGX in securities priced below $1.00 is a rebate of
$0.00003 per share and the proposed standard fee to remove liquidity is
0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In each case, the internalization fee is no more favorable
to the Member than each prevailing maker/taker spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deletion of the clause (i) in Footnote 1 as a method to qualify
for the Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032 is equitable and reasonable as the
rebate did not have the intended effect of incentivizing Members to add
liquidity to EDGX by posting 0.75% of the TCV in ADV to EDGX. The
Exchange also notes that with the deletion of this method of qualifying
for the Mega Tier rebate of $0.0032, Members will continue to be
subject to the other fees and tiers listed on the Exchange's fee
schedule and can continue to achieve the rebate of $0.0032 per share
through alternative criteria (posting 0.12% of the TCV in ADV more than
the Member's February 2011 ADV added to EDGX). The Exchange also notes
that the tier's elimination will have a minimal impact on its Members
as only one Member qualified for such rebate in the past three months.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
    Similarly, the proposed elimination of Footnote 11's rebate is
equitable and reasonable in that Members also were not incentivized to
add, remove, and route liquidity to EDGX. As a result of the
internalization rebate, Members who internalized and met the criteria
to satisfy the Mega Tier and the volume threshold of 4% of their ADV on
EDGX would be rebated $0.00032 per share per side of an execution (the
applicable rebate in Footnote 1 for adding liquidity) and be charged
$0.0030 per share per side of an execution (the applicable removal rate
in Footnote 1, in this case). As a result of the elimination of this
tier in Footnote 11, Members will continue to be subject to the other
fees and tiers listed on the Exchange's fee schedule. The Exchange also
notes that the tier's elimination will have a minimal impact on its
Members as only one Member qualified for such rebate in the past three
months. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment
is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
    Finally, the Exchange's proposal to expand the ability to use
Retail Orders to those Members who prefer to designate certain of their
FIX ports on the Exchange as ``Retail Order Ports'' represents an
additional, voluntary choice that the Exchange provides to its Members
in order to utilize Retail Orders. The additional option thus allows
Members an alternative method through which Retail Orders can be
designated, while ensuring that Members are required to have written
policies and procedures designed to assure that they will only
designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order
are met.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it provides a second method for
Retail Order designation and allows each Member to choose the
designation method most convenient to it, recognizing that individual
firms have different internal system configurations. By providing
alternative avenues for Members to designate orders as Retail Orders,
the Exchange believes that Members will choose the designation method
that is most operationally efficient, potentially reducing transaction
costs. The proposal is also non-discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all Members equally.
    The Exchange also expects that this alternative way to designate
orders as Retail Orders would incentivize more Members to utilize
Retail Orders. The Exchange also notes that NYSE Arca currently
supports Retail Order Ports.\23\ In this regard, the Exchange believes
that maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in
exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national
securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-
exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors
by

deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. Moreover, the proposed use of Retail Orders, which are
available for all Members that utilize FIX, is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because FIX is available for all Members on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis, as all Members can sign up for new
logical ports using FIX or HP-API at a cost of $500/month (the first
five DIRECT logical ports being provided free). The Exchange also notes
that all Members that it expects will send Retail Orders either on an
order-by-order basis or via designated Retail Order Ports currently
maintain logical ports that utilize FIX. The Exchange also notes that
the Members that only utilize HP-API are generally those that are more
concerned with latency, as they trade for their own accounts where
their order flow typically would not qualify as retail order flow.
Finally, all order entry protocols on the Exchange do not necessarily
support all Exchange functions and are designed differently in order to
support the Member base most likely to utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR
46539 (August 3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and rebates remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. Proposing to allow Members to designate Retail Order Ports
increases competition with exchanges such as NYSE Arca that currently
allow such practice \24\ and does not impose any burden on intramarket
competition as all Members have an additional way to designate Retail
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposals to lower the rebate from
$0.0023 per share to $0.0021 per share will also assist in increasing
competition in that its proposed rebate is comparable to rebates for
adding liquidity offered by NYSE Arca, Inc. (rebates of $0.0021 per
share for adding liquidity in Tapes A/C securities and $0.0022 per
share for adding liquidity in Tape B securities) \25\ and on NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC \26\ (rebate of $0.0020 per share). Similarly, the
Exchange believes that its increase in its default removal rate in
securities priced less than $1.00 from 0.10% of the dollar value of the
transaction to 0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction will also
assist in increasing competition as its proposed fee is comparable to
fees on NYSE and NASDAQ for removing liquidity in securities priced
below $1.00. The Exchange believes that both proposals will have no
burden on intramarket competition as the rates apply uniformly to all
Members that place orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 or
below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Arca Equities Trading Fees, http://usequities.nyx.com/markets/nyse-arca-equities/trading-fees.
    \26\ NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Price List--Trading &
Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate one method to
achieve the Mega Tier on its fee schedule and eliminate its rebate for
internalization in Footnote 11 will have no burden on intermarket or
intramarket competition as Members are able to qualify for other tiered
rebates and discounts at the Exchange or move their order flow to
competing exchanges. Finally, the Exchange believes that its
internalization rates for all securities (priced $1.00 and above and
below $1.00) will also not burden intermarket or intramarket
competition as the proposed rates in both cases are no more favorable
than Members achieving the maker/taker spreads between the default add
and remove rates on EDGX.

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) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \28\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2012-48 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-EDGX-2012-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
EDGX-2012-48 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31752 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32419-32421]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0263; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-137-AD;
Amendment 39-15957; AD 2009-14-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5,
20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of hot air leaks when operating the wing anti-icing
system. The seals Part Number (P/N) MS29513-325, near the de-icing
valves (12H1) and (12H2) in frame 33 area, do not have the proper
temperature rating.
    The consequences, in the area of the hot air leak, are risks of
ignition of potential hydraulic leaks.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12,
2009.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2009 (74
FR 13147). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of hot air leaks when operating the wing anti-icing
system. The seals Part Number (P/N) MS29513-325, near the de-icing
valves (12H1) and (12H2) in frame 33 area, do not have the proper
temperature rating.
    The consequences, in the area of the hot air leak, are risks of
ignition of potential hydraulic leaks.
    The purpose of this AD is to verify that seals with correct
temperature rating have been installed on Mystere-Falcon 20-()5
airplanes.

The corrective action includes replacing the left and right seals near
de-icing valves (12H1) and (12H2) in frame area 33. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.

Request To Refer to Current Revision of the Service Bulletin

    Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation (Dassault) requests that we revise
the NPRM to refer to Revision 1 of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F20-766, dated June 24, 2008, in this AD. We referred to Dassault
Service Bulletin F20-766, dated October 31, 2005, in the NPRM as the
appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed
requirements.
    We agree. Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-766, Revision 1,
dated June 24, 2008, does not specify any additional action for
airplanes on which the required actions have been accomplished in
accordance with the original issue of Dassault Service Bulletin F20-
766, dated October 31, 2005. Also, paragraph 1.D. of Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F20-766,

Revision 1, dated June 24, 2008, revises the compliance to correspond
with the MCAI. Therefore, we revised paragraphs (f) and (h) of this AD
to refer to Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-766, Revision 1,
dated June 24, 2008. We have also revised paragraph (f) of this AD to
give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F20-766, dated October 31,
2005.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 187 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $14,960, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-14-07 Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-
Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)): Amendment 39-15957. Docket No. FAA-2009-
0263; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-137-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
12, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and
20-F5 airplanes, certificated in any category, without Dassault
Service Bulletin F20-766 implemented.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
rain protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following the
discovery of hot air leaks when operating the wing anti-icing
system. The seals Part Number (P/N) MS29513-325, near the de-icing
valves (12H1) and (12H2) in frame 33 area, do not have the proper
temperature rating.
    The consequences, in the area of the hot air leak, are risks of
ignition of potential hydraulic leaks.
    The purpose of this AD is to verify that seals with correct
temperature rating have been installed on Mystere-Falcon 20-()5
airplanes.

The corrective action includes replacing the left and right seals
near de-icing valves (12H1) and (12H2) in frame area 33.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 7 months after the effective
date of this AD, perform an inspection for a red line marking on
each of the Wiggins couplings that are located near the de-icing
valves (12H1) and (12H2), in accordance with Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F20-766, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2008. If a red
line is not found, prior to further flight, replace the seals to the
left and right Wiggins couplings, in accordance with Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-766, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2008.
Inspections and replacements accomplished before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F20-766,
dated October 31, 2005, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or
lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0123, dated July 2, 2008; and Dassault Mandatory
Service Bulletin F20-766, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2008; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F20-766,
Revision 1, dated June 24, 2008, 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
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://
www.dassaultfalcon.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> or<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 June 24, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15638 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72649-72650]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25203]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9053-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed November 2, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through November 9, 2020 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200221, Final, NRCS, WA, ADOPTION--Skokomish River Ecosystem
Restoration, Review Period Ends: 12/14/2020, Contact: Karen Fullen 503-
273-2404.

    The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has adopted the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Final EIS No. 20150267, filed 09/16/2015
with the Environmental Protection Agency. The NRCS was not a
cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the
document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b)(1) of the CEQ
regulations.

EIS No. 20200222, Final, USFWS, BLM, UT, Northern Corridor--Highway
Right-of-way, Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, Final EIS and
Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 12/
14/2020, Contact: Gloria Tibbetts<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20200223, Draft, NRC, NM, Disposal of Mine Waste at the United
Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico, Comment
Period Ends: 12/28/2020, Contact: Ashley Waldron<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200224, Second Final Supplemental, USACE, MS, Final
Supplement II (SEIS II) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) Project, Mississippi River
Mainline Levees and Channel Improvement of 1976 (1976 EIS), as updated
and supplemented by Supplement No. 1, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project, Mississippi River Mainline Levee Enlargement and Seepage
Control of 1998 (1998 SEIS), Review Period Ends: 12/14/2020, Contact:
Mike Thron<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-25203 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 56361]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4402-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-4402-DR), dated October 18, 2018, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 18, 2018.

    Marquette County for Individual Assistance (already designated
for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-24674 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35256-35257]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14903]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64645; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to Routing Fees

June 10, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 7, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Customer Routing Fee governing
pricing for Exchange members using the Phlx XL II system,\3\ for
routing standardized equity and index option Customer orders to the C2
Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a complete description of Phlx XL II, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The instant proposed fees will apply only
to option orders entered into, and routed by, the Phlx XL II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
July 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the
Exchange incurs for routing and executing Customer orders in equity and
index options to C2.
    The Exchange's Fee Schedule includes Routing Fees for routing and
executing Customer and Professional orders to away markets. The
Exchange currently assesses a Customer Routing Fee of $0.21 per
contract for option orders that are routed to C2.
    C2 recently amended its Fees Schedule to increase its public
customer taker fee from $.15 to $.25.\4\ The Exchange is proposing to
amend its Customer Routing Fee to C2 to account for this increase. The
Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to assess a Customer
Routing Fee of $0.31 per contract for option orders that are routed to
C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64390 (May 4, 2011),
76 FR 27117 (May 10, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish
Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the Exchange, as the
Exchange's exclusive order router.\5\ NOS is utilized by the Phlx XL II
system solely to route orders in options listed and open for trading on
the Phlx XL II system to destination markets. Each time NOS routes to
away markets NOS is charged a $0.06 clearing fee and, in the case of
certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also charged in certain
symbols, which fees are passed through to the Exchange. The Exchange is
proposing this amendment in order to recoup clearing and transaction
charges incurred by the Exchange when Customer orders are routed to
C2.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
    \6\ The Exchange is proposing to recoup the $.25 per contract
public customer transaction fee for orders routed to C2 along with
the $0.06 clearing fee which is incurred by the Exchange, as
explained above. See C2 Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in
response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule
change. While fee changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon
filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on
July 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this fee is reasonable because it seeks
to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing Customer
orders to C2 on behalf of its members. Each destination market's
transaction charge varies and there is a standard clearing charge for
each transaction incurred by the

Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fee would
enable the Exchange to recover the public customer transaction fee
assessed by C2, plus clearing fees for the execution of Customer
orders. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Routing Fee is
equitable because it would be uniformly applied to all Customers.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-81 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-Phlx-2011-81. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-81 and should be
submitted on or before July 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14903 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25974-25977]
[DOCID:fr08my08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD;
Amendment 39-15517; AD 2008-10-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to
satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This
AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL
inspections to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary.
This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside
fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or
maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 12,
2008.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6497; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing
Model 757 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41963). That supplemental
NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by
incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That supplemental NPRM
also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive
inspections specified in the AWLs to phase-in those inspections, and
repair if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to revise the
original NPRM by aligning the compliance time for revising the AWLs
section with the compliance date of the special maintenance program
requirements, updating the listing of applicable airplane maintenance
manuals in Appendix 1, and clarifying certain actions.

Actions Since Supplemental NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the supplemental NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary
Revision (TR) 09-008, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-008 is published
as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as
``Revision March 2008 of the MPD''). The supplemental NPRM referred to
Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008
of the MPD, among other actions, includes the following changes:
     Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight
cycles from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-14.
     Revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 to
harmonize it with AWL No. 28-AWL-02 by removing references to certain
station numbers.
     Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop
resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundle
installations.
    Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new
paragraph (j) to this AD specifying that actions done before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006
through November 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from
Table 1 of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing
AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-14 to within 120
months since the date of issuance of the original standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness.

    Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD
to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-24
inclusive. AWL No. 28-AWL-25 was added in Revision October 2006 of the
MPD, and AWL No. 28-AWL-26 was added in Revision January 2007 of the
MPD. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those
AWLs as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    We have issued a separate NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-28598) that, in
part, proposes to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 and No. 28-AWL-26 into
the AWLs section of the ICA. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37132). We have also issued AD 2008-06-
03, amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008) that, in part,
requires revising the AWLs section of the ICA to incorporate AWLs No.
28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25. Therefore, we have added a
new paragraph (k) to this AD specifying that incorporating AWLs No. 28-
AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 in accordance with paragraph
(g) of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(2) of AD
2008-06-03.

Other Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to clarify that the
actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance
time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we
have revised this AD in the following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of
the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to
ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are
treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the
original type certificate.
     We have revised Note 1 of this AD to clarify that an
operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot
accomplish the proposed inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
proposed inspections.
     We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that
accomplishing the applicable AWLs in Table 1 of this AD as part of an
FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time
constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that
paragraph.
     We have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD, since Revision
March 2008 of the MPD already contains most of the updated information
that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM.

Comments

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

Request To Extend the Task Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, on behalf of several operators, requests
that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness
limitation item (ALI) intervals with the applicable maintenance
significant item (MSI) and enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP)
intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The
recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align
with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes,
the proposal recommends extending certain AWL inspection intervals from
10 years/36,000 flight cycles to 12 years for Model 757 airplanes.
    We disagree with KLM's request to extend certain AWL inspection
intervals to 12 years. However, as stated previously, we have deleted
the 36,000-total-flight-cycle parameter from Table 1 of this AD to
correspond with the task intervals specified in Revision March 2008 of
the MPD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action,
we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition
and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a
period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for
most affected operators. However, according to the provisions of
paragraph (l) of this AD, we might approve requests to adjust the
compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new
compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety.

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

    Boeing states that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03
specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised,
since those values are relevant for production airplanes. Boeing also
states that the revised values will be more representative of the
expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that,
according to paragraph (h) of the supplemental NPRM, the revised values
should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the
MPD if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA.
    We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values
for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of the
MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Note 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the supplemental NPRM to
clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is
difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators
that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator
has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by
the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows:

     Add the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' at the end of
the first sentence.
     Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
     Delete the words ``(g) or'' and ``as applicable'' from the
last sentence.
    As stated previously, we have simplified the language in Note 1 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note.
Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 990 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at
an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                     Cost per          U.S.-
                     Action                         Work  hours      airplane       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWLs revision...................................               8            $640             639        $408,960
Inspections.....................................               8             640             639         408,960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-10-11 Boeing: Amendment 39-15517. Docket No. FAA-2006-26710;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective June 12, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

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

Compliance

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

Service Information

    (f) The term ``Revision March 2008 of the MPD'' as used in this
AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-008, dated March 2008.
Boeing TR 09-008 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) Document, D622N001-9, Revision
March 2008.

Revision of Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Section

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating the
information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(3) of this AD into the MPD; except that the initial
inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the
compliance times specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the revision in
accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method
of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    (1) Subsection E, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,''
of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
    (2) Subsection F, ``PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS,'' of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
    (3) Subsection G, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEM
AWLs,'' AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-24 inclusive, of
Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-
AWL-25 and No. 28-AWL-26, as identified in Subsection G of Revision
March 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the AWLs
section of the ICA.

Initial Inspections and Repair

    (h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the
compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any
discrepancy, in accordance with Section G of Revision March 2008 of
the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight.
Accomplishing the actions in accordance with a later revision of the
MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections
identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified
in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements
of this paragraph.

                                          Table 1.--Initial Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Compliance time  (whichever occurs later)
               AWL No.                       Description       -------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Threshold               Grace period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 28-AWL-01........................  A detailed inspection    Within 120 months since  Within 72 months after
                                        of external wires over   the date of issuance     the effective date of
                                        the center fuel tank     of the original          this AD.
                                        for damaged clamps,      standard airworthiness
                                        wire chafing, and wire   certificate or the
                                        bundles in contact       date of issuance of
                                        with the surface of      the original export
                                        the center fuel tank.    certificate of
                                                                 airworthiness.
(2) 28-AWL-03........................  A special detailed       Within 120 months since  Within 24 months after
                                        inspection of the        the date of issuance     the effective date of
                                        lightning shield to      of the original          this AD.
                                        ground termination on    standard airworthiness
                                        the out-of-tank fuel     certificate or the
                                        quantity indicating      date of issuance of
                                        system to verify         the original export
                                        functional integrity.    certificate of
                                                                 airworthiness.
(3) 28-AWL-14........................  A special detailed       Within 120 months since  Within 60 months after
                                        inspection of the        the date of issuance     the effective date of
                                        fault current bond of    of the original          this AD.
                                        the fueling shutoff      standard airworthiness
                                        valve actuator of the    certificate or the
                                        center wing tank to      date of issuance of
                                        verify electrical bond.  the original export
                                                                 certificate of
                                                                 airworthiness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2: 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.''

    Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''

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

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

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-
9, Revision March 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision January
2007; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Terminating Action for AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415

    (k) Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-
AWL-25 into the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance with paragraph
(g) of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(2) of
AD 2008-06-03.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-008, dated
March 2008, to the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
Document, D622N001-9, to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09-008 is
published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9917 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 46082]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1036-000.
    Applicants: Greylock Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Full Tariff Cancellation to be
effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1037-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PXP Ph II Agmt Shipper Name
Change to be effective 7/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1039-000.
    Applicants: Greylock Shawville Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing Change in name
to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1040-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--July
24 2020 Tenaska to be effective 7/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1041-000.
    Applicants: Greylock Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: base line new to be effective
8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1042-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 20200724 2019 Operational Purchases
and Sales Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200724-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at:
    http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: July 27, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16673 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P