[Federal Register: December 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69264-69267]
[DOCID:fr31de09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1210; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-165-AD;
Amendment 39-16148; AD 2008-10-09 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200,
-200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD),
which applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. That AD currently requires revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations (AWLs)
for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 88 requirements. That AD also requires an initial inspection to
phase in certain repetitive AWL inspections, and repair if necessary.
This AD clarifies the intended effect of the AD on spare and

on-airplane fuel tank system components. That AD results from a design
review of the fuel tank system. 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 is effective January 15, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 15,
2010.
    On June 12, 2008 (73 FR 25970, May 8, 2008), the Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain
other publication listed in the AD.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by February 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 29, 2008, we issued AD 2008-10-09, Amendment 39-15515 (73
FR 25970, May 8, 2008). That AD applied to all Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That AD required revising
the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That AD also required an
initial inspection to phase in certain repetitive AWL inspections, and
repair if necessary. That AD resulted from a design review of the fuel
tank system. The actions specified in that AD are intended 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.
    Critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) are
limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source
prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to
prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL
is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source
prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic
inspection.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

    Since we issued that AD, we have determined that it is necessary to
clarify the AD's intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank
system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and
instructions for continued airworthiness.
    Section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
91.403(c)) specifies the following:

    No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's
maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has
been issued that contains an airworthiness limitation section unless
the mandatory * * * procedures * * * have been complied with.

Some operators have questioned whether existing components affected by
the new CDCCLs must be reworked. We did not intend for the AD to
retroactively require rework of components that had been maintained
using acceptable methods before the effective date of the AD. Owners
and operators of the affected airplanes therefore are not required to
rework affected components identified as airworthy or installed on the
affected airplanes before the required revisions of the FAA-approved
maintenance program. But once the CDCCLs are incorporated into the FAA-
approved maintenance program, future maintenance actions on components
must be done in accordance with those CDCCLs.

Relevant Service Information

    AD 2008-10-09 cites Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008. Since we issued
that AD, Boeing has revised the referenced service information. We have
reviewed Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR,
Revision May 2009 (hereafter referred to as ``Revision May 2009 of
Document D6-38278-CMR''). Among other actions, the revised service
information clarifies certain task descriptions and adds some new AWLs
for certain airplanes.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we
are issuing this AD to revise AD 2008-10-09. This new AD retains the
requirements of the existing AD, and adds a new note to clarify the
intended effect of the AD on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system
components.

Explanation of Additional Changes to AD

    AD 2008-10-09 allowed the use of alternative inspections,
inspection intervals, or CDCCLs if they are part of a later revision of
Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. AD 2008-10-09 also
allowed the use of later revisions of Revision March 2008 of Document
D6-38278-CMR. Those provisions have been removed from this AD. Allowing
the use of a ``later approved'' or ``later FAA-approved revisions'' of
specific service documents violates Office of the Federal Register
regulations for approving materials that are incorporated by reference.
Affected operators, however, may request approval to use a later
revision or an

alternative inspection, inspection interval, or CDCCL that is part of a
later revision of the referenced service document, as an alternative
method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,337 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 U.S.-
            Action               Work hours          Parts           Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.               8  None.............            $640             672        $430,080
Inspection...................               8  None.............             640             672         430,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    This revision merely clarifies the intended effect on spare and on-
airplane fuel tank system components, and makes no substantive change
to the AD's requirements. For this reason, it is found that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment for this action are unnecessary,
and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2009-1210; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-165-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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 the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this 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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15515 (73 FR
25970, May 8, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

2008-10-09 R1 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16148. Docket No.
FAA-2009-1210; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-165-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 15,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2008-10-09, Amendment 39-15515.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.

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.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-10-09, With Revised Compliance
Method

Service Information Reference

    (f) The term ``Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR,''
as used in this AD, means Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March

2008. The term ``Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-CMR,'' as
used in the AD, means Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate the information specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable; except that
the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD must be
done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph.
    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Section
C, ``FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' including AWLs No.
28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-
CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-23
inclusive, as identified in Section C of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-
CMR, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance
program.
    (2) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: Section
C, ``FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' including AWLs No.
28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive, Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-
CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 through No. 28-AWL-22
inclusive, as identified in Section C of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-
CMR, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance
program.

Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary

    (h) For the airplanes identified in the ``Applicability'' column
of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document
D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-CMR: At the
later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection of the lightning
shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity
indication system (FQIS) wiring to verify functional integrity, in
accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March
2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-
38278-CMR. If any discrepancy is found during the inspection, repair
the discrepancy before further flight in accordance with AWL No. 28-
AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR,
or Revision May 2009 of Document D6-38278-CMR. Accomplishing AWL No.
28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the
applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.

    Note 1: 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.''

    (1) Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certification or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) Within 24 months after June 12, 2008 (the effective date of
AD 2008-10-09).

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 approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the
Service Information

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2006; Revision
September 2006; Revision November 2007; or Revision March 2008; are
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

New Information

Explanation of CDCCL Requirements

    Note 2: Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational
requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or
installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the FAA-
approved maintenance program, as required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs.
However, once the FAA-approved maintenance program has been revised,
future maintenance actions on these components must be done in
accordance with the CDCCLs.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sue Lucier, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail
information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2008-10-09,
Amendment 39-15515, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008; or Boeing
737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR,
Revision May 2009; 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 Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009, under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008, on June 12,
2008 (73 FR 25970, May 8, 2008).
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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>.
    (5) 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 December 16, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-30565 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31488-31491]
[DOCID:fr03jn10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62181; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish the NYSE BBO Service

May 26, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On April 1, 2010, the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish the NYSE BBO Service, a service that
will make available the Exchange's best bids and offers and to
establish fees for that service. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on April 22, 2010.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61914 (April 15,
2010), 75 FR 21077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

a. Subscribers and Data Feed Recipients

    The NYSE BBO Service is a NYSE-only market data service that allows
a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same best-bid-and-
offer information that NYSE reports under the CQ Plan for inclusion in
the CQ Plan's consolidated quotation information data stream (``NYSE
BBO Information''). NYSE BBO Information would include the best bids
and offers for all securities that are traded on the Exchange and for
which NYSE reports quotes under the CQ Plan. NYSE will make the NYSE
BBO Service available over a single datafeed, regardless of the markets
on which the securities are listed.
    The NYSE BBO Service would allow vendors, broker-dealers, private
network providers and other entities (``NYSE-Only Vendors'') to make
NYSE BBO Information available on a real-time basis. NYSE-Only Vendors
may distribute the NYSE BBO Service to both professional and
nonprofessional subscribers.
    The Exchange would make NYSE BBO Information available through its
new NYSE BBO Service no earlier than

it makes that information available to the processor under the CQ Plan.

b. Fees

i. Access Fee
    For the receipt of access to the NYSE BBO datafeed, the Exchange
proposes to charge $1500 per month. One $1500 monthly access fee
entitles an NYSE-Only Vendor to receive both the NYSE BBO datafeed as
well as the Exchange's NYSE Trades datafeed.\4\ The fee applies to
receipt of NYSE market data within the NYSE-Only Vendor's organization
or outside of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission approved the Exchange's NYSE Trades service,
a NYSE-only market data service that allows a vendor to redistribute
on a real-time basis the same last sale information that the
Exchange reports to the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') for
inclusion in CTA's consolidated data stream and certain other
related data elements. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59606
(March 19, 2009), 74 FR 13293 (March 26, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Professional Subscriber Fees
    For the receipt and use of NYSE BBO Information, the Exchange
proposes to charge $15 per month per professional subscriber device.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to offer an alternative
methodology to the traditional device fee. Instead of charging $15 per
month per device, it proposes to offer NYSE-Only Vendors the option of
paying $15 per month per ``Subscriber Entitlement.'' The fee entitles
the end-user to receive and use NYSE BBO Information relating to all
securities traded on NYSE, regardless of the market on which a security
is listed. For the purpose of calculating Subscriber Entitlements, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the unit-of-count methodology approved by
the Commission earlier this year with respect to its NYSE
OpenBook[supreg] service (the ``Unit-of-Count Filing'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62038 (May 5, 2010),
75 FR 26825 (May 12, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-22) (approving on a
permanent basis the alternative unit-of-count methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee
    The Exchange proposes to charge each NYSE-Only Vendor $5.00 per
month for each nonprofessional subscriber to whom it provides NYSE BBO
Information. The Exchange proposes to impose the charge on the NYSE-
Only Vendor, rather than on the nonprofessional Subscriber. In
addition, the Exchange proposes, to establish as an alternative to the
fixed $5.00 monthly fee, a fee of $.005 for each response that a NYSE-
Only Vendor disseminates to a nonprofessional Subscriber's inquiry for
a best bid or offer under the NYSE BBO service. The Exchange proposes
to limit a NYSE-Only Vendor's exposure under this alternative fee to
$5.00 per month, the same amount as the proposed fixed monthly
nonprofessional Subscriber flat fee. In order to take advantage of the
per-query fee, a NYSE-Only Vendor must document in its Exhibit A that
it can: (1) Accurately measure the number of queries from each
nonprofessional Subscriber and (2) report aggregate query quantities on
a monthly basis.
    The Exchange will impose the per-query fee only on the
dissemination of best bids and offers to nonprofessional Subscribers.
The per-query charge is imposed on NYSE-Only Vendors, not end-users,
and is payable on a monthly basis. NYSE-Only Vendors may elect to
disseminate the NYSE BBO service pursuant to the per-query fee rather
than the fixed monthly fee.
    In establishing a nonprofessional Subscriber fee for the NYSE BBO
Service, the Exchange proposes to apply the same criteria for
qualification as a ``nonprofessional subscriber'' as the CTA and CQ
Plan Participants use. Similar to the CTA and CQ Plans, classification
as a nonprofessional subscriber is subject to Exchange review and
requires the subscriber to attest to his or her nonprofessional
subscriber status. A ``nonprofessional subscriber'' is a natural person
who uses the data solely for his personal, non-business use and who is
neither:
    A. Registered or qualified with the Securities and Exchange
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 adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or
not registered or qualified under that act), nor
    C. Employed by a bank or other organization exemption 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 function for an organization not so
exempt.

c. Justification of Fees

    The Exchange believes that the proposed monthly access fee,
professional subscriber fee and nonprofessional subscriber fee for the
NYSE BBO Service will enable NYSE-Only Vendors and their subscribers to
contribute to the Exchange's operating costs in a manner that is
appropriate for the distribution of NYSE BBO Information in the form
taken by the proposed services. In setting the level of the proposed
fees, the Exchange considered several factors, including:
    (i) NYSE's expectation that the NYSE BBO Service is likely to be a
premium service, used by investors most concerned with receiving NYSE
BBO Information on a low latency basis;
    (ii) The fees that the CQ Plan Participants, Nasdaq, NYSE Amex and
NYSE Arca are charging for similar services (or that NYSE anticipates
they will soon propose to charge);
    (iii) Consultation with some of the entities that the Exchange
anticipates will be the most likely to take advantage of the proposed
service;
    (iv) The contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that are most likely to take
advantage of the proposed service;
    (v) The contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fee
will make to meet the overall costs of the Exchange's operations;
    (vi) The savings in administrative and reporting costs that the
NYSE BBO Service will provide to NYSE-Only Vendors (relative to
counterpart services under the CQ Plan); and
    (vii) The fact that the proposed fees provide alternatives to
existing fees under the CQ Plan, alternatives that vendors will
purchase only if they determine that the perceived benefits outweigh
the cost.

d. Administrative Requirements

    The Exchange will require each NYSE-Only Vendor to enter into a
vendor agreement just as the CTA and CQ Plans require recipients of the
Network A datafeeds to enter (the ``Consolidated Vendor Form''). The
agreement will authorize the NYSE-Only Vendor to provide NYSE BBO
Information to its customers or to distribute the data internally.
    In addition, the Exchange will require each professional end-user
that receives NYSE BBO Information from a vendor or broker-dealer to
enter into the form of professional subscriber agreement into which the
CTA and CQ Plans require end users of Network A data to enter. It will
also require NYSE-Only Vendors to subject nonprofessional subscribers
to the same contract requirements as the CTA and CQ Plan Participants
require of Network A nonprofessional subscribers.

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to

a national securities exchange.\6\ In particular, it is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other parties using its facilities, and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\9\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\10\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \11\ NYSE is an exclusive processor of the NYSE BBO service
under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes information with respect to quotations or
transactions on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the proposal using the approach set
forth in the NYSE Arca Order for non-core market data fees.\12\ In the
NYSE Arca Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance
on competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to
assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\13\ It noted that the ``existence of significant competition provides
a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \14\ If an exchange ``was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of a proposal,''
the Commission will approve a proposal unless it determines that
``there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Exchange Act
or the rules thereunder.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Order''). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission describes in
great detail the competitive factors that apply to non-core market
data products. The Commission hereby incorporates by reference the
data and analysis from the NYSE Arca Order into this order.
    \13\ Id. at 74771.
    \14\ Id. at 74782.
    \15\ Id. at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NYSE Arca Order, the standards in Section 6 of the
Act and Rule 603 of Regulation NMS do not differentiate between types
of data and therefore apply to exchange proposals to distribute both
core data and non-core data. Core data is the best-priced quotations
and comprehensive last-sale reports of all markets that the Commission,
pursuant to Rule 603(b), requires a central processor to consolidate
and distribute to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans.\16\ In
contrast, individual exchanges and other market participants distribute
non-core data voluntarily.\17\ The mandatory nature of the core data
disclosure regime leaves little room for competitive forces to
determine products and fees.\18\ Non-core data products and their fees
are, by contrast, much more sensitive to competitive forces. The
Commission therefore is able to use competitive forces in its
determination of whether an exchange's proposal to distribute non-core
data meets the standards of Section 6 and Rule 603.\19\ Because NYSE's
instant proposal relates to the distribution of non-core data, the
Commission will apply the market-based approach set forth in the NYSE
Arca Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 242.603(b). (``Every national securities
exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and national securities
association shall act jointly pursuant to one or more effective
national market system plans to disseminate consolidated
information, including a national best bid and national best offer,
on quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks. Such plan or plans
shall provide for the dissemination of all consolidated information
for an individual NMS stock through a single plan processor.'')
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74779.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to establish a service that would allow a
vendor to redistribute best bids and offers for all securities that are
traded on the Exchange and for which NYSE reports quotes under the CQ
Plan. The Exchange proposes to establish a monthly vendor fee and an
alternative fee rate that uses the unit-of-count methodology. The
Exchange represents that this change would provide investors with a
less expensive alternative to access bids and offer calculations than
the CQ Plan's consolidated data.
    The proposal before the Commission relates to fees for NYSE BBO
Information which is a non-core, market data product. As in the
Commission's NYSE Arca Order analysis, at least two broad types of
significant competitive forces applied to NYSE in setting the terms of
this proposal: (i) NYSE's compelling need to attract order flow from
market participants; and (ii) the availability to market participants
of alternatives to purchasing NYSE's BBO Information.
    Attracting order flow is the core competitive concern of any equity
exchange, including NYSE. Attracting order flow is an essential part of
NYSE's competitive success. If NYSE cannot attract order flow to its
market, it will not be able to execute transactions. If NYSE cannot
execute transactions on its market, it will not generate transaction
revenue. If NYSE cannot attract orders or execute transactions on its
market, it will not have market data to distribute, for a fee or
otherwise, and will not earn market data revenue and thus not be
competitive with other exchanges that have this ability. Table 1 below
provides a useful recent snapshot of the state of competition in the
U.S. equity markets in the month of September 2009:\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Commission recently published estimated trading
percentages in NMS Stocks in its Concept Release on Equity Market
Structure. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January
14, 2010), 75 FR 3594, 3597 n. 21 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-
02-10).

  Table 1--Trading Centers and Estimated % of ShareVolume in NMS Stocks
                             September 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Share
                       Trading Venue                          Volume in
                                                              NMS Stocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Exchanges:

  NASDAQ...................................................         19.4

  NYSE.....................................................         14.7

  NYSE Arca................................................         13.2

  BATS.....................................................          9.5

  NASDAQ OMX BX............................................          3.3

  Other Registered Exchanges...............................          3.7
ECNs:
  5 ECNS...................................................         10.8
Dark Pools:
  32 Dark Pools (Estimated)................................          7.9
Broker-Dealer Internatization:
  200+ Broker-Dealers (Estimated)..........................         17.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market share percentages in Table 1 strongly indicate that NYSE
must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its share of trading
volume. This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant
pressure on NYSE to act reasonably in setting its fees for NYSE market
data, particularly given that the market participants that must pay
such fees often will be the same market participants from whom NYSE
must attract order flow. These market participants particularly include
the large broker-dealer firms that control the handling of a large
volume of customer and proprietary order flow. Given the portability of
order flow from one trading venue to another, any exchange that seeks
to charge unreasonably high data fees would risk alienating many of the
same customers on whose orders it depends for competitive survival.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to NYSE's BBO Information data significantly affect the
terms on which NYSE can distribute this market data.\22\ In setting the
fees for its NYSE BBO Service, NYSE must consider the extent to which
market participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the exchange's data.\23\ Of course, the most basic source of
information generally available at an exchange is the complete record
of an exchange's transactions that is provided in the core data
feeds.\24\ In this respect, the core data feeds that include an
exchange's own transaction information are a significant alternative to
the exchange's market data product.\25\ The various self-regulatory
organizations, the several Trade Reporting Facilities of FINRA, and
ECNs that produce proprietary data are all sources of competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law Sec.  9.1 (5th
ed. 1998) (discussing the theory of monopolies and pricing). See
also U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed'l Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger
Guidelines Sec.  1.11 (1992), as revised (1997) (explaining the
importance of alternatives to the presence of competition and the
definition of markets and market power). Courts frequently refer to
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission merger
guidelines to define product markets and evaluate market power. See,
e.g., FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2007); FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004). In
considering antitrust issues, courts have recognized the value of
competition in producing lower prices. See, e.g., Leegin Creative
Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007); Atlanta
Richfield Co. v. United States Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574
(1986); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997); Northern Pacific
Railway Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1 (1958).
    \23\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74783.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, there are a variety of alternative sources of information
that impose significant competitive pressures on the NYSE in setting
the terms for distributing its NYSE BBO Information. The Commission
believes that the availability of those alternatives, as well as the
NYSE's compelling need to attract order flow, imposed significant
competitive pressure on the NYSE to act equitably, fairly, and
reasonably in setting the terms of its proposal.
    Because the NYSE was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that its terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder. An analysis of the proposal does not
provide such a basis.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\26\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2010-30) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13336 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30013-30014]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0442; FMCSA-2015-0321; FMCSA-
2017-0254; FMCSA-2018-0050]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 17
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 provided
below.

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 Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    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-2012-0294; FMCSA-2013-0442; FMCSA-2015-
0321; FMCSA-2017-0254; or FMCSA-2018-0050, 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 Docket Operations
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. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting Docket Operations.

A. 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.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 6, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 17 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR
19222). The public comment period ended on May 6, 2020, and no comments
were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  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 \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 17 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and
are discussed below.
    As of April 8, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), 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 (85 FR
19222):
    Aaron Harms (MO) and Michael Ranalli (PA).
    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2012-0294 and
FMCSA-2017-0254. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 8, 2020,
and will expire on April 8, 2022.
    As of April 11, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR
19222):

Scott Gessner (PA)
Jerry L. Henderson (IN)
Preston R. Kanagy (TN)
Steven Shirley (UT)
Matthew Staley (CO)
Mohammad Warrad (IA)
Richard J. Wenner (MN)
John C. Wolfe (PA)
Dennis R. Zayic (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2015-0321. Their
exemptions are applicable as of April 11, 2020, and will expire on
April 11, 2022.
    As of April 23, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), 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 (85 FR
19222):
    Randy Pinto (PA) and James Spece (PA).
    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0442. Their

exemptions are applicable as of April 23, 2020, and will expire on
April 23, 2022.
    As of April 26, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR
19222):

Brian Johnson (MN)
Gerald Klein Jr. (ID)
Shane W. Martinek (OK)
William P. Swick (MI)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2018-0050. Their
exemptions are applicable as of April 26, 2020, and will expire on
April 26, 2022.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (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
prior to being 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(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-10698 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 1665]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00226]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Environmental Energy Services, Inc., IDI Global, Inc., Inform
Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Iptimize, Inc., NGEN, Inc. (a/k/a Nanogen,
Inc.), and Patron Systems, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

January 7, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Environmental Energy Services, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
IDI Global, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Inform Worldwide Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Iptimize, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
NGEN, Inc. (a/k/a Nanogen, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Patron Systems, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended March 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on January 7, 2014, through 11:59
p.m. EST on January 21, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00226 Filed 1-7-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 66 (Monday, April 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19110-19112]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07047]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0212; Product Identifier 2018-SW-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C helicopters. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of inaccurate main gear box (MGB)
indications in flight. This proposed AD would require updating the
remote data acquisition unit (RDAU) software and re-identifying the
RDAU and, for certain helicopters, updating the software of the display
unit (DU) and re-identifying the DU. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 21,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact your local
Sikorsky Field Representative or Sikorsky's Service Engineering Group
at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611;
phone: 1-800-Winged-S; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Operators may also log on to the Sikorsky 360 website at https://www.sikorsky360.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 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 https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0212; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Min Zhang, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7161; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0212;
Product Identifier 2018-SW-097-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA has received reports of inaccurate MGB indications in
flight. There have been seven inaccurate oil pressure indications in-
flight, including one event in which the flight crew called ``Mayday,''
and considered ditching the helicopter. There have been no
comprehensive root cause findings, but there have been multiple
erroneous indications and annunciations, as well as hardware
subcomponent failures. There is a possibility of an elevated operating
temperature effect on subcomponent reliability, which causes
instability in the power supply output. In at least one incident, the
malfunction was due to a rare soft failure of a capacitor in the +15Vdc
power supply circuit on the engine processor board installed in channel
B of the RDAU. This condition resulted in multiple erroneous values and
annunciations on channel B, and if not addressed, could cause the
flight crew to land immediately, and consequent possible loss of the
helicopter, injury, or fatality. To address this issue, this proposed
AD would require updating the RDAU software and re-identifying the RDAU
and, for certain helicopters, updating the software of the DU and re-
identifying the DU.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following Sikorsky service information.
    Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-3, Revision B, dated June 26, 2018;
Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-4, Revision A, dated May 30, 2018; and
Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-5, dated July 31, 2018. This service
information describes procedures for updating the RDAU software and re-
identifying the RDAU. This service information also describes
procedures for sending the inspection results to Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation. These documents are distinct since they apply to specific
helicopter models in different configurations (different part numbered
RDAU units).
    Service Bulletin 76-006, Revision A, dated August 23, 2018. This
service information describes procedures for updating the software of
DU part number 76450-01098-101, and re-identifying the DU as part
number 76450-01098-108. This service information also describes
procedures

for sending the inspection results to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the relevant
information and determining the unsafe condition described previously
is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type
design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information recommends accomplishing the update of the
RDAU software and re-identification of the RDAU and, for certain
helicopters, update of the software of the DU and re-identification of
the DU, depending on service information, no later than a specific
calendar date (April 30, 2019 for Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-3,
Revision B, dated June 26, 2018; June 30, 2019 for Alert Service
Bulletin 76-31-4, Revision A, dated May 30, 2018; or July 31, 2019 for
Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-5, dated July 31, 2018). In developing an
appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered factors
including the manufacturer's recommendation, the degree of urgency
associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the average
utilization of the affected fleet. After considering these factors, the
FAA finds that a 500 hour time-in-service compliance time (which is
approximately one year based on the average annual flight hours for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C helicopters) represents an
appropriate interval of time for affected helicopters to continue to
operate without compromising safety.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 99 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update RDAU software (99 helicopters).  3 work-hours x $85 per                 *            $255         $25,245
                                         hour = $255.
Update display units (52 helicopters).  7 work-hours x $85 per                 *             595          30,940
                                         hour = $595.
Reporting (99 helicopters)............  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0              85           8,415
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA to provide parts cost estimates for the
  actions specified in this proposed AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal
Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-
1524.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2020-0212; Product
Identifier 2018-SW-097-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 21, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C
helicopters, certificated in any category, equipped with remote data
acquisition unit (RDAU) part number 76450-01098-106, 76450-01098-
107, or 76450-01098-109.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 3100, Indicating/
recording system.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of inaccurate main gear box
(MGB) indications in flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
inaccurate MGB indications in flight, resulting in multiple
erroneous values/annunciations on channel B, which could cause the
flight crew to land immediately, and consequent possible loss of the
helicopter, injury, or fatality.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) RDAU and Display Unit (DU) Updates

    Within 500 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4)
of this AD, as applicable to your helicopter.
    (1) For helicopters equipped with RDAU part number 76450-01098-
109, update the RDAU software and re-identify the RDAU in accordance
with Section 3., Paragraphs A. through J. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-3, Revision B,
dated June 26, 2018, except you are not required to return the RDAU
to Parker Fluid Systems Division (FSD).
    (2) For helicopters equipped with RDAU part number 76450-01098-
107, update the RDAU software and re-identify the RDAU in accordance
with Section 3., Paragraphs A. through J. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-4, Revision A,
dated May 30, 2018, except you are not required to return the RDAU
to Parker FSD.
    (3) For helicopters equipped with RDAU part number 76450-01098-
106, update the RDAU software and re-identify the RDAU in accordance
with Section 3., Paragraphs A. through K. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin 76-31-5, dated July
31, 2018, except you are not required to return the RDAU to Parker
FSD.
    (4) For helicopters equipped with RDAU part number 76450-01098-
106, update the software of DU part number 76450-01098-101 and re-
identify the DU as part number 76450-01098-108, in accordance with
Section 3., Paragraphs A. through J. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Sikorsky Service Bulletin 76-006, Revision A, dated
August 23, 2018, except you are not required to return the DU to
Parker FSD.

(h) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any helicopter, a DU part number 76450-01098-101, unless it has been
modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of
this AD.

(i) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of
this AD, submit a report of compliance with the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD, as applicable to your
helicopter. The report must include the document number and title of
the service information used, the owner and/or operator of the
helicopter, the submitter's name, date, and the helicopter serial
number. Submit the report to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in
accordance with Section 3., Paragraph A. (Record of Compliance) of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin
76-31-3, Revision B, dated June 26, 2018; Section 3., Paragraph L.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Alert Service
Bulletin 76-31-4, Revision A, dated May 30, 2018; Section 3.,
Paragraph M. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin 76-31-5, dated July 31, 2018; or Section 3.,
Paragraph L. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Sikorsky Service
Bulletin 76-006, Revision A, dated August 23, 2018, as applicable to
your helicopter.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin 76-31-3, dated March 2, 2018; or Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin 76-31-3, Revision A, dated March 29, 2018.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(2) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Sikorsky Alert
Service Bulletin 76-31-4, dated May 17, 2018.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(4) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Sikorsky
Service Bulletin 76-006, dated July 26, 2018.

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this
collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Min Zhang,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact your
local Sikorsky Field Representative or Sikorsky's Service
Engineering Group at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; phone: 1-800-Winged-S; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Operators may also log on to
the Sikorsky 360 website at https://www.sikorsky360.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 31, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-07047 Filed 4-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45346-45348]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16484]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78243; File No. SR-BOX-2016-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Short Term Option
Series Program To Allow Wednesday Expirations for SPY Options

July 7, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') 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 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 IM-5050-6 to Rule 5050 to allow the
listing and trading of options with Wednesday expirations. The text of
the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Series
Program outlined in IM-5050-6 to Rule 5050 to allow the listing and
trading of options with Wednesday expirations.
    Currently, under the Short Term Option Series Program, which was
initiated in 2010,\3\ the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday
or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that
expire on each of the next five Fridays, provided that such Friday is
not a Friday in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options
Series expire (``Short Term Option Series''). The Exchange is now
proposing to amend its rule to permit the listing of options expiring
on Wednesdays. Specifically, BOX is proposing that it may open for
trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day, series of
options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) to expire on any Wednesday
of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which
Quarterly Options Series expire (``Wednesday SPY Expirations'').\4\ The
proposed Wednesday SPY Expiration series will be similar to the current
Short Term Option Series, with certain exceptions, as explained in
greater detail below. The Exchange notes that having Wednesday
expirations is not a novel proposal. Specifically, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') recently received approval to
list Wednesday expirations for broad-based indexes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62505 (July 15,
2010), 75 FR 42792 (July 22, 2010) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-BX-2010-047).
    \4\ See Proposed IM-5050-6(c) to Rule 5050.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14,
2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2015-
106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regards to Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange is proposing
to remove the current restriction preventing BOX from listing Short
Term Option Series that expire in the same week in which monthly option
series in the same class expire. Specifically, the Exchange will be
allowed to list Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same week in which
monthly option series in SPY expire. The current restriction to
prohibit the expiration of monthly and Short Term Option Series from
expiring on the same trading day is reasonable to avoid investor
confusion. This confusion will not apply with Wednesday SPY Expirations
and standard monthly options because they will not expire on the same
trading day, as standard monthly options do not expire on Wednesdays.
Additionally, it would lead to investor confusion if Wednesday SPY
Expirations were not listed for one week every month because there was
a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that week.
    Under the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations, BOX may list up to
five consecutive Wednesday SPY Expirations at one time. The Exchange
may have no more than a total of five Wednesday SPY Expirations listed.
This is the same listing procedure as Short Term Option Series that
expire on Fridays. The Exchange is also proposing to clarify that the
five series limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program Rule
will not include any Wednesday SPY Expirations.\6\ This means, under
the proposal, the Exchange would be allowed to list five Short Term
Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday under the current
rule and five Wednesday SPY Expirations. The interval between strike
prices for the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations will be the same as
those for the current Short Term Option Series. Specifically, the
Wednesday SPY

Expirations will have $0.50 strike intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed changes to IM-5050-6(a) to Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, for each Short Term Option Expiration Date,\7\ the
Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration
date for the specific class. The thirty (30) series restriction does
not include series that are open by other securities exchanges under
their respective short term option rules; BOX may list these additional
series that are listed by other exchanges.\8\ The thirty (30) series
restriction shall apply to Wednesday SPY Expiration series as well. In
addition, the Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by
other exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission
to list SPY options expiring on Wednesdays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BOX may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a
business day series of options on that class that expire on each of
the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in
which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire
(``Short Term Option Expiration Dates''). See IM-5050-6(a).
    \8\ See IM-5050-6(b)(1) to Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case with current Short Term Option Series, the Wednesday
SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled. The Exchange does not
believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the
introduction of P.M.-settled Wednesday SPY Expirations. The Exchange
currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire
almost every Friday, which provide market participants a tool to hedge
special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The
Exchange seeks to introduce Wednesday SPY Expirations to, among other
things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to
continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The
Exchange believes that Wednesday expirations, similar to Friday
expirations, would allow market participants to purchase an option
based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their
investment and hedging needs more effectively.
    The Exchange is also amending the definition of Short Term Option
Series to make clear that it includes Wednesday expirations.
Specifically, the Exchange is amending the definition to expand Short
Term Option Series to those listed on any Tuesday or Wednesday and that
expire on the Wednesday of the next business week. If a Tuesday or
Wednesday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall
expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday or
Wednesday.
    The Exchange believes that the introduction of Wednesday SPY
Expirations will provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to
manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive
to the timing of events affecting the industry.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\9\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series
Program has been successful to date and that Wednesday SPY Expirations
simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market
movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur
throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series
Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange
believes Wednesday SPY Expirations should create greater trading and
hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the
ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives. The
Exchange believes that allowing Wednesday SPY Expirations and monthly
SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize
investor confusion by providing Wednesday SPY Expirations in a
continuous and uniform manner.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate
surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in
Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the
current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents that it
has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.

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. The Exchange notes that having
Wednesday expirations is not a novel proposal.\11\ The Exchange does
not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket
competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same
manner as existing Short Term Option Series. Additionally, the Exchange
does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket
competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from
proposing similar rules to those that the Exchange is currently
proposing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra, note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-BOX-2016-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-28. 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 such filing will also 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-BOX-2016-28 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16484 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P