[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71707-71708]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24938]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-5622]

Notice of Intention To Cancel Registration Pursuant to the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940

November 5, 2020.
    Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') intends to issue an order, pursuant to section 203(h)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act''), cancelling the
registration of Ann T. Coffey Wealth Management LLC [File No. 801-
77092], hereinafter referred to as the ``registrant.''
    Section 203(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that if the
Commission finds that any person registered under section 203 of the
Act, or who has pending an application for registration filed under
that section, is no longer in existence, is not engaged in business as
an investment adviser, or is prohibited from registering as an
investment adviser under section 203A of the Act, the Commission shall
by order, cancel the registration of such person.
    The registrant indicated on its most recent Form ADV annual
amendment that it is no longer eligible to remain registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser but has not filed Form ADV-W to
withdraw its registration.\1\ Furthermore, the registrant has not filed
a Form ADV amendment annually with the Commission as required by rule
204-1 under the Act; therefore, it appears that the registrant is not
in existence or otherwise not engaged in business as an investment
adviser.\2\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that reasonable
grounds exist for a finding that the registrant is no longer eligible
to be registered with the Commission as an investment adviser and that
the registration should be cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The registrant filed its most recent Form ADV annual
amendment on March 27, 2018.
    \2\ Rule 204-1 under the Act requires any adviser that is
required to complete Form ADV to amend the form at least annually
and to submit the amendments electronically through the Investment
Adviser Registration Depository.

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

    Notice is also given that any interested person may, by November
30, 2020, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request
for a hearing on the cancellation, accompanied by a statement as to the
nature of his or her interest, the reason for such request, and the
issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and he or
she may request that he or she be notified if the Commission should
order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be emailed to
the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    At any time after November 30, 2020, the Commission may issue an
order cancelling the registration, upon the basis of the information
stated above, unless an order for a hearing on the cancellation shall
be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who
requested a hearing, or who requested to be advised as to whether a
hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this
matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any
postponements thereof. Any adviser whose registration is cancelled
under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the
Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's
rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).

ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Palascak, Senior Counsel at
202-551-6999; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Investment
Adviser Regulation Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 200.30-5(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24938 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 84 (Monday, May 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20514-20516]
[FR Doc No: E9-10118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59822; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-034]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Modifying Rule 7050 Governing Pricing for The NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'')

April 27, 2009.
    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 April 9, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq has filed this proposal
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ [sic] Nasdaq has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to
members, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing.
The Commission is publishing this notice and [sic] order to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq has filed a proposed rule change to modify Rule 7050
governing pricing for Nasdaq members using the NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing standardized
equity and index options. Proposed new language is underlined [sic];
proposed deletions are in brackets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
7050. NASDAQ Options Market
    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the NASDAQ Options Market for all securities.
    (1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the NASDAQ Options Market

Except as specified below,     $0.45 per executed contract.
 the charge to member
 entering order that executes
 in the NASDAQ Options Market.
For a pilot period ending      $0.45 per executed contract.
 July 31, 2009, charge for
 members or non-members
 entering order via the
 Options Intermarket Linkage
 that executes in the Nasdaq
 Options Market.
Charge to members entering     No fee.
 orders in options on QQQQ,
 SPY, DIA, IWM, AAPL BAC, C,
 GS, JPM, RIMM, XLE, XLF, and
 XOM with an account type
 ``Customer'' that executes
 and remove liquidity entered
 by another member.
Credit to member providing     $0.30 per executed contract.
 liquidity through the NASDAQ
 Options Market.
Credit to member providing     $0.35 per executed contract.
 liquidity using price-
 improving orders through the
 NASDAQ Options Market.

                                                Fees and Rebates
                                             [Per executed contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Customer          Firm        Market maker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Options:                                              ..............  ..............  ..............
    Rebate to Add Liquidity.....................................           $0.25           $0.25           $0.25
    Fee for Removing Liquidity..................................            Free            0.45            0.45
All Other Options:                                                ..............  ..............  ..............
    Fee for Adding Liquidity....................................            Free            0.30            0.30
    Fee for Removing Liquidity..................................  ..............            0.45            0.45
    Rebate for Removing Liquidity...............................            0.20  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions in which the same participant is the buyer and the seller shall be charged a net fee of $0.10 per
  executed contract.
For a pilot period ending July 31, 2009, the charge for members or non-members entering order via the Options
  Intermarket Linkage that executes in the Nasdaq Options Market shall be $0.45 per executed contract.

     (2)-(4) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below [sic], and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is modifying NASDQ Rule 7050, the fee schedule for NOM, in
several ways. First, Nasdaq is making several changes that apply to
orders with an account type of ``Customer.'' Specifically, Nasdaq is
expanding a pricing program to lower the fee for the execution of
options contracts for certain orders in certain options on the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''). On January 12, 2009, Nasdaq began permitting
orders with an account type of ``Customer'' to take liquidity \6\ for
free in certain options. Nasdaq applied the new fee provision to
options on four exchange-traded funds: QQQQ, SPY, DIA, and IWM. Nasdaq
later expanded that program to apply the reduced fee provision to
options on the following equities: AAPL, BAC, C, GS, JPM, RIMM, XLE,
XLF, and XOM. That proposal accomplished its goal of attracting
liquidity to the Nasdaq Options Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An order that takes liquidity is one that is entered into
NOM and that executes against an order resting on the NOM book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, Nasdaq now proposes to expand the application of that
rule to additional options classes. Specifically, Nasdaq is expanding
the program to all options that are included in the Options Penny Pilot
Program. Nasdaq will monitor the trading of options on these equities
to ensure that the proposal is operating in a fashion that promotes the
interests of investors.
    Nasdaq is also changing the fee structure for ``Customer'' orders
in options not included in the Options Penny Pilot Program.
Specifically, Nasdaq will charge no execution fees for members
providing liquidity through the NASDAQ Options Market with an account
type ``Customer.'' Nasdaq will also offer a credit of $0.20 per
executed contract to members entering orders in options with an account
type ``Customer'' that execute and remove liquidity entered by another
member in options that are not included in the Options Penny Pilot
Program.
    Second, Nasdaq is modifying NASDAQ Rule 7050 to further distinguish
between options that are included in the Options Penny Pilot Program
and those that are not. Specifically, NOM will provide a credit of
$0.25 to members providing liquidity through NOM in options included in
the Options Penny Pilot Program. [sic], and charge a fee of $0.30 to
members providing liquidity in the capacity of ``firm'' or ``market
maker'' (as opposed to ``customer'') through NOM for options that are
not included in Options Penny Pilot Program.
    Third, Nasdaq is modifying NASDAQ Rule 7050 with respect to all
options to change the distinction between orders that interact with
other members' orders and those that interact with orders from the same
firm. Specifically, Nasdaq will charge a fee of $0.10 per executed
contract when a member order executes against the order entered by the
same firm. Similarly, Nasdaq will not offer a credit or charge a fee
when a member order provides liquidity to an order entered by the same
firm.
    Fourth, Nasdaq is eliminating the special pricing currently offered
for Price Improving Orders. Going forward, Price Improving Orders will
be subject to the standard fee schedule set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7050
as amended by this proposed rule change.
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed fees are competitive, fair and
reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that they apply equally to all
similarly situated members and customers. As with all fees, Nasdaq may
adjust these proposed fees in response to competitive conditions by
filing a new proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis

    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. As one of seven options
market in the national market system, Nasdaq's fees must be competitive
and low in order for Nasdaq to attract order flow, execute orders, and
grow as a market. Nasdaq believes that its fees are fair and reasonable
and consistent with the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
Nasdaq has designed its fees to compete effectively for the execution
of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to investors of
options trading.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ Nasdaq has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to
members, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing.
Nasdaq will make the proposed pricing schedule operational on April 13,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-034. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-034 and should be
submitted on or before May 26, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10118 Filed 5-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 26496]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11816]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85972; File No. 013-00031]

Initial Form ATS-N Filing; Notice of Extension of Commission
Review Period

May 31, 2019.
    On February 1, 2019, BIDS ATS filed an initial Form ATS-N (``Form
ATS-N'') with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').
Pursuant to Rule 304 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), the Commission may, after notice and an opportunity for
hearing, declare an initial Form ATS-N ineffective no later than 120
days from the date of filing with the Commission, or, if applicable,
the extended review period. June 1, 2019 is 120 calendar days from the
date of filing. Pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), the Commission may
extend the initial Form ATS-N review period for up to an additional 120
calendar days if the initial Form ATS-N is unusually lengthy or raises
novel or complex issues that require additional time for review.
    BIDS ATS was operating pursuant to an initial operation report on
Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7, 2019.\1\ BIDS ATS
filed an initial Form ATS-N on February 1, 2019. During the initial 120
calendar day review period, the Commission staff has been reviewing the
disclosures on BIDS ATS's initial Form ATS-N. In addition, the staff
has been engaged in ongoing discussions with BIDS ATS about its
disclosures and manner of operations, as well as the requirements of
Form ATS-N, to facilitate complete and comprehensible disclosures that
reflect the complexities of those operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An NMS Stock ATS (as defined in Rule 300(k) of Regulation
ATS) that was operating pursuant to an initial operation report on
Form ATS on file with the Commission as of January 7, 2019 is a
``Legacy NMS Stock ATS.'' 17 CFR 242.301(b)(2)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form ATS-N requires NMS Stock ATSs to file with the Commission, and
disclose to the public for the first time, certain information,
including descriptions by the NMS Stock ATSs of their fees, the trading
activities by their broker-dealer operators and their affiliates in the
NMS Stock ATSs, their use of market data, their written standards for
granting access to trading on the NMS Stock ATSs, and their written
safeguards and procedures for protecting their subscribers'
confidential trading information required by revised Rule 301(b)(10) of
Regulation ATS. The initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with
Commission staff have revealed complexities about the operations of
Legacy NMS Stock ATSs including, among other things, matching
functionalities, means of order entry, order interaction and execution
procedures, conditional order processes, segmentation of orders, and
counterparty selection protocols. The Commission staff needs additional
time to review novel and complex issues such as these, which Commission
staff has discussed with BIDS ATS. Extending the initial Form ATS-N
Commission review period for an additional 120 calendar days will
provide Commission staff an opportunity to continue its review of the
initial Form ATS-N disclosures and discussions with BIDS ATS.
    In the conversations between BIDS ATS and Commission staff about
the initial Form ATS-N disclosures and the ATS operations, Commission
staff and BIDS ATS have discussed a potential amendment to update BIDS
ATS's disclosures regarding the complexities of its operations.
Extending the review period will enable the NMS Stock ATS to amend its
disclosures, if appropriate, and allow Commission staff to conduct a
thorough review of amendments to the initial disclosures provided on
the initial Form ATS-N.
    For the reasons given above, the Commission is extending the review
period of the initial Form ATS-N submitted by BIDS ATS. Accordingly,
pursuant to Rule 304(a)(1)(iv)(B), September 29, 2019 is the date by
which the Commission may declare the initial Form ATS-N submitted by
BIDS ATS ineffective.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11816 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9756-9761]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0681; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-201-AD;
Amendment 39-18400; AD 2016-04-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that a
repetitive test is needed to inspect the components on airplanes
equipped with a certain air distribution system configuration. This AD
requires doing repetitive testing for correct operation of the
equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system,
and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires, for certain
airplanes, installing new relays and doing wiring changes to the
environmental control system. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low
pressure environmental control system, which, in combination with a
cargo fire event, could result in smoke in the flight deck and/or main
cabin, and possible loss of aircraft control.

DATES: This AD is effective April 1, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 1,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0681.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0681; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2015 (80 FR
17368) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that a
repetitive test is needed to inspect the components on airplanes
equipped with a certain air distribution system configuration. The NPRM
proposed to require repetitive testing for correct operation of the
equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system,
and corrective actions if necessary. The

NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, installing new
relays and doing wiring changes to the environmental control system. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the
equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system,
which, in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in
the flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft
control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Conditions Leading to Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition to clarify
that latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure
environmental control system alone do not create the unsafe condition
addressed in the NPRM. Boeing explained that the unsafe condition is a
combination of a failure of both systems along with a cargo fire event,
which could lead to a smoke penetration hazard.
    We agree to revise the description of the events leading to the
unsafe condition, and have revised the SUMMARY section in this final
rule and paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify that the hazard
being mitigated by the NPRM is smoke penetration into the occupied
areas of the airplane--the flight deck or the main cabin (not just the
flight deck). Boeing stated that failure of the equipment cooling
system and/or low pressure environmental control system, in combination
with a cargo fire event, could lead to cargo smoke penetration into the
flight deck and/or main cabin, either of which could be catastrophic.
    We agree that clarification is needed to specify that the hazard
being mitigated by the NPRM is smoke penetration into flight deck and
main cabin, which are occupied areas of the airplane. We have revised
the SUMMARY section in this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD
accordingly.

Request To Match Repetitive Interval in Service Information

    Boeing, Delta Airlines (Delta), United Airlines (United), and Yuta
Kobayashi requested that we revise the repetitive interval for the
operational test from 9,000 flight cycles to 9,000 flight hours. Boeing
stated that a 9,000 flight-hour interval is supported by a fault tree
analysis, whereas the repetitive interval of 9,000 flight cycles
required by the NPRM is not. Mr. Kobayashi stated that a correction
needed to be made since Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137,
dated May 22, 2014, states the repetitive interval in flight hours.
    We agree with the request to revise the repetitive interval since
the repetitive interval in flight hours matches the interval stated in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. In the
proposed AD, we inadvertently specified flight ``cycles'' instead of
flight ``hours.'' We have revised the interval in paragraph (g) of this
AD from flight ``cycles'' to flight ``hours.''

Request To Clarify Airplanes Subject to Repetitive Testing Requirement

    The Discussion section of the NPRM stated that a repetitive test is
needed on airplanes equipped with an air distribution system that had
been reconfigured in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-26-1122. Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to
clarify that all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER
airplanes are subject to the repetitive testing (as specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014)--not just those
airplanes with reconfigured air distribution systems. Boeing added that
Model 737-700C and 737-900 airplanes were not subject to the same
changes and thus were not included in the effectivity of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13,
2009.
    We agree that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May
22, 2014, describes procedures for the operational testing of the
equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control
systems, and that all 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER
airplanes are subject to this repetitive testing. However, the
Discussion section that appeared in the NPRM is not repeated in this
final rule. Therefore no change has been made to this final rule in
this regard.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From Applicability

    Delta requested that we revise the NPRM to exclude airplanes that
have not been modified by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. Delta further requested
that these airplanes be subject to evaluation for additional separate
rulemaking.
    Delta stated that it believes two separate airworthiness concerns
must be addressed. Delta stated that the first concern identified by
the NPRM is a potential latent failure of the equipment cooling system
and low pressure environmental control system; Delta noted this
condition is addressed by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137,
dated May 22, 2014.
    Delta stated that the second concern, not identified by the NPRM,
is the need to properly isolate the occupied areas of the airplane from
smoke intrusion in the event of a cargo compartment fire; Delta noted
this condition is addressed by the following service information:
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1121,
Revision 1, dated October 26, 2009.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122,
Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135,
Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1163,
Revision 1, dated December 17, 2009.
    Delta stated this service information introduces, among other
tasks, better sealing of the cargo compartment and changes to the
environmental control system to keep the cargo compartment at a lower
pressure than that of the cabin in order to keep smoke from a cargo
compartment fire out of occupied areas.
    We disagree with the request to exclude the airplanes identified by
the commenter and consider separate rulemaking for those airplanes. The
primary airworthiness concern addressed by the requirements in this AD
is the lack of a procedure to detect and correct latent failures of the
equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system,
which, in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in
the flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft
control. This unsafe condition affects all Model 737-600, -700, -700C,
-800, -900, and -900ER airplanes, regardless of whether Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13,
2009, has been done. Therefore, all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER airplanes are subject to the repetitive testing in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, not just
those airplanes reconfigured using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
    For certain airplanes, Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-26-

1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, is a concurrent requirement
because the actions specified Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, must be done to make
sure the testing results are satisfactory (e.g., electrical components
that are required to reconfigure the air distribution system during a
cargo fire event need to be installed).
    In addition, the installation and changes specified in paragraph B.
``Concurrent Requirements'' of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, will need to
be implemented, if not already done, in order accomplish the concurrent
requirements as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. These measures are
necessary to properly isolate the occupied areas of the aircraft from
smoke penetration in the event of a cargo compartment fire, such as
changes to the cargo compartment sealing and equipment cooling system
to keep the cargo compartment at a lower pressure than the cabin
pressure. Therefore, we have not changed this final rule regarding this
issue.

Request To Incorporate Additional Service Information and Revise the
Costs of Compliance Section

    Delta and Southwest Airlines (Southwest) requested that the Costs
of Compliance section of the NPRM be revised to capture the costs of
the following service information since they are identified as
``Concurrent Requirements'' in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009:
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1121,
Revision 1, dated October 26, 2009.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135,
Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008.
     Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1163,
Revision 1, dated December 17, 2009.
    Delta stated these concurrent service bulletins add a significant
burden to operators in terms of labor and time since they amount to 190
additional work-hours. Delta added that since these concurrent actions
add significant change in scope, it is necessary to withdraw the
existing proposed rule, allow operators the opportunity to comment on
their incorporation, and reissue a revised rule with a new comment
period. Additionally, Delta asked that these documents be specified by
their explicit revision level in order to ensure the correct intended
compliance actions are satisfied.
    We agree to add the labor and parts costs for concurrent
accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-
1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, because it is a requirement of
this final rule for Group 1 airplanes; the costs for this action were
inadvertently omitted from the NPRM.
    We also acknowledge the installation and changes specified in
paragraph B. ``Concurrent Requirements'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, may
also need to be done for certain airplanes. We have therefore revised
the Costs of Compliance section of this final rule by adding 208 work-
hours and a parts cost of $27,323 for the concurrent action.
    We do not agree to withdraw the existing NPRM and reissue a revised
NPRM with a new comment period. To delay this final rule would be
inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition
exists. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, we
may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are
submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Conflicting Concurrent Requirements

    Jet2.com requested that compliance guidance be given for airplanes
equipped with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST02076LA (http://
rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
73f6dd3b3bfe1890862578af0053cf0a/$FILE/ST02076LA.pdf); specifically,
Jet2.com asked for clarification for airplanes that accomplished STC
ST02076LA as an alternative action to installing the automatic shutoff
system for the center tank fuel boost pumps using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-28A1206, Revision 2, dated May 21, 2009, which is required
by AD 2011-18-03, Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26, 2011).
Jet2.com explained that while the concurrent service information is
clear for accomplishing the required actions of the proposed AD,
actions for airplanes having STC ST02076LA are not clear.
    We agree to clarify the concurrent requirements of this AD.
Paragraph B., ``Concurrent Requirements,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, refers
to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, dated
December 12, 2007, for certain changes. However, Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135, dated December 12, 2007,
inadvertently specified concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006. Boeing
subsequently issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-21-1135,
Revision 1, dated November 13, 2008, which no longer identifies Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, as
concurrent service information. We have revised paragraph (h) of this
AD to clarify the concurrent requirements and state that Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January 11, 2006, is not required
by this AD.

Request To Clarify Initial Compliance Time for Production Airplanes

    American requested that we clarify the initial compliance times for
airplanes that have not yet been delivered, since the proposed AD
specifies a compliance time for the initial testing of only in-service
airplanes, but not airplanes that are in production. American also
requested a more definitive method of determining aircraft effectivity
than relying on ``the `Get Effectivity' function on myboeingfleet.com''
as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May
22, 2014.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Group 3 airplanes in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, are
identified as those having line numbers 1701 and all line numbers after
1701. It is not necessary to use the `Get Effectivity' function on
``myboeingfleet.com'' because airplanes in production are Group 3
airplanes. The compliance time for Group 3 airplanes as specified in
the NPRM is within 10 months. However, we have determined that for
airplanes having line numbers 4923, 4924, and 4926 and subsequent,
which were delivered after the issuance of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, a compliance time of ``before
the accumulation of 9,000 total flight hours'' will provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have coordinated this change with
Boeing. As a result, we have restructured paragraph (g) to include new
subparagraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).

Request To Revise Initial Compliance Time Relative to AD Effective Date

    United requested that we clarify the initial compliance times for
the test for correct operation of the equipment cooling system and low
pressure environmental control system of the

proposed AD. United requested that the compliance time be revised from
the effective date of the service bulletin to the effective date of the
AD since Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014,
was not required at the time it was published and therefore, some
operators may already be beyond the compliance time when this AD is
issued.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. This AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD. This provision was specified in paragraph (i) of the
proposed AD, and is retained in this AD. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Refer to a Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) as a Method
of Compliance

    Aeroflot requested that we refer to Boeing Maintenance Planning
Document B737 MPD 21-050-00. Aeroflot stated that the MPD and Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, refer to the
same task specified in Boeing Airplane Maintenance Manual 21-27-00-700.
    We disagree with the request. Although this final rule does not
refer to Boeing B737 MPD 21-050-00 as a method of compliance, operators
may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for these
actions in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this
AD if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the MPD
provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Clarification Regarding the Installation of Winglets

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does
not affect compliance.
    We agree with the commenter that Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408E012E008616A7862578880060456C?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does
not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service
instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May
22, 2014, which describes procedures for repetitive testing for correct
operation of the smoke clearance mode of the equipment cooling system
and low pressure environmental control system, and applicable
corrective actions.
    We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-
1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, which describes procedures for
installing new relays and doing wiring changes to the environmental
control system.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,372 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test...............  4 work-hours x $85 per  $0...............  $340 per           $466,480 per
                                  hour = $340 per                            operation test     operation test
                                  operation test cycle.                      cycle.             cycle.
Installation of new relays and   Up to 208 work-hours x  Up to $27,323....  Up to $45,003....  Up to
 wiring changes to the            $85 per hour =                                                $27,586,839.
 environmental control system     $17,680.
 (concurrent actions) (up to
 613 airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary system fault
isolation and replacements that would be required based on the results
of the operational test. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perform system fault isolation and replace     10 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $0             $850
 faulty component.                              $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-04-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18400; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0681; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-201-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 1, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2120, Air
Distribution System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that repetitive
inspection is needed to inspect the components on airplanes equipped
with a certain air distribution system configuration. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment
cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which,
in combination with a cargo fire event, could result in smoke in the
flight deck and/or main cabin, and possible loss of aircraft
control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Operational Tests and Corrective Action

    At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, do a test for correct operation of the smoke clearance
mode of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental
control system, and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the test thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight hours.
    (1) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times identified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137,
dated May 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes having line numbers 4923, 4924, and 4926 and
subsequent: Before the accumulation of 9,000 total flight hours.

(h) Concurrent Requirements

    For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014: Before or concurrently
with accomplishing the initial operational test required of
paragraph (g) of this AD, install new relays and do wiring changes
to the environmental control system, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. When the
actions required by this paragraph are done, the installation and
changes specified in paragraph B. ``Concurrent Requirements'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1,
dated August 13, 2009, must also be done. However, operators should
note that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1206, dated January
11, 2006, is not required by this AD.

(i) Exception to the Service Information

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, specifies a compliance
time ``after the original issue date of this service bulletin,''
this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time
after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(3)(i) and (j)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22,
2014.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122,
Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03459 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P