[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71536-71538]
[DOCID:fr24no10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0862; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-040-AD;
Amendment 39-16518; AD 2010-23-28]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 29, 2010.
    On December 29, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the 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 service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA--
Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)
62 41 73 00; fax: + 33 (0) 62 41 76 54; or for the U.S.A: SOCATA NORTH
AMERICA, North Perry Airport, 7501 South Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines,
Florida 33023; telephone: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://mysocata.com/. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2010 (75
FR 52480), and proposed to supersede AD 2009-23-12, Amendment 39-16086
(74 FR 58539; November 13, 2009). That NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA released Pilot Operating
Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in case of
failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard in
order to activate the oxygen generator. The Emergency AD 2009-0096-E
was issued to mandate the follow-up of these actions by the
operators in case of failure. This EAD was subsequently revised into
AD 2009-0096R1 in order to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue has been
developed. Consequently, this new AD, superseding EASA AD 2009-
0096R1 retaining its requirements, requires implementing the
modification which is a terminating action.

Comments

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

Retain Page 3.13.5 of TR No. 3

    Catherine H[eacute]rau, Socata, to maintain consistency with the
MCAI, requests that we retain Page 3.13.5 of TR No. 3, dated March
2009, inserted into the Emergency Procedures section and the
Limitations section of DAHER-SOCATA TBM 700 A & B POH. We agree with
the commenter there is a necessity to keep the associated page of the
TR in the POH.
    We have deleted the requirement to remove Page 3.13.5 of TR No. 3
from the final rule AD action.

Conclusion

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 126 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $66 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $19,026 or $151 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16086 (74 FR
58539; November 13, 2009) and adding the following new AD:

2010-23-28 SOCATA: Amendment 39-16518; Docket No. FAA-2010-0862;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-040-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
29, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-23-12, Amendment 39-16086.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial
numbers 1 through 204, 206 through 239, and 241 through 243, that
are:
    (i) certificated in any category; and
    (ii) equipped with a chemical oxygen generation system.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 35: Oxygen.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA released Pilot Operating
Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in case of
failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard in
order to activate the oxygen generator. The Emergency AD 2009-0096-E
was issued to mandate the follow-up of these actions by the
operators in case of failure. This EAD was subsequently revised into
AD 2009-0096R1 in order to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue has been
developed. Consequently, this new AD, superseding EASA AD 2009-
0096R1 retaining its requirements, requires implementing the
modification which is a terminating action.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before further flight after December 29, 2010 (the effective
date of this AD), insert Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009,
into the Emergency Procedures section and the Limitations section of
DAHER-SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH).
    (2) Within 7 months after December 29, 2010 (the effective date
of this AD) or 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after December 29,
2010 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first,
replace the existing oxygen generator release pin, part number (P/N)
T700A3510038100, with an open pin, P/N T700A351004410000, using the
accomplishment instructions of DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 70-168, dated December 2009.
    (3) After December 29, 2010 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install in any affected airplane an oxygen generator release
pin, P/N T700A3510038100.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, 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 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2010-0090, dated May 18, 2010; DAHER-SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March
2009; and DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB
70-168, dated December 2009, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use DAHER-SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's Operating
Handbook (POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009; and
DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-168,
dated December 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 this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
SOCATA--Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
telephone: 33 (0) 62 41 73 00; fax: + 33 (0) 62 41 76 54; or for the
U.S.A.: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, North Perry Airport, 7501 South
Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: 1 (954) 893
1400; fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://mysocata.com/.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on November 4, 2010.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28612 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8053]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-48-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

February 16, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 29, 2010, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42301, filed in Docket No. CP10-48-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210, and 157.216 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
for authorization to replace a two mile section of the 12-inch diameter
XT pipeline by constructing approximately two miles of 20-inch diameter
pipeline, located in Johnson County, Missouri, all as more fully set
forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, Southern Star proposes to replace two miles of 12-
inch diameter XT pipeline with two miles of 20-inch diameter XM
pipeline as a continuation of its multi-year plan initiated in 2008 to
replace the remaining miles of 12-inch diameter XT pipeline. Southern
Star estimates the cost of construction to be $4,961,000, for which
internally generated funds will be used. Southern Star asserts that
after the proposed construction is completed, approximately two miles
of the 12-inch diameter XT pipeline will be abandoned either in place
or by removal at landowners' discretion. Southern Star states that the
replacement pipeline will improve reliability and offer flexibility on
its system, but does not provide any additional firm capacity upstream
and will continue to be operated at its current Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 570 psi.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to David
N. Roberts, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3461 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48028-48029]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17406]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 12, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topic:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory,

examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: August 5, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17406 Filed 8-5-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23259-23261]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0334; Product Identifier 2020-NM-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes

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 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of inadequate clearance
between the fuel probes and forward fuel tank structure. This proposed
AD would require measuring the clearance between certain fuel probes
and the forward fuel tank structure, and reinstalling the probes if
necessary, as specified in a Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI)
AD, which will be incorporated by reference. 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 June 11,
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 the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the CAAI, Mr. Vladimir
Novicov, Engineering Branch, CAAI--P.O. Box 1101, 3 Golan Street,
Airport City, Israel, 70151; telephone 972-3-9774529; fax 972-3-
9774592; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this IBR material on
the CAAI website at www.caa.gov.il. You may view this IBR material at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0334.

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-
0334; 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, the regulatory evaluation, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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-2020-0334;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-014-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 based on 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 CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued
Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5, dated October 10, 2019 (``Israeli AD ISR-
I-53-19-10-5'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280
airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of inadequate clearance
between certain fuel probes (probe No.1 and probe No.3) and the forward
fuel tank structure. The FAA is proposing this AD to address such
inadequate clearance, which could result in a potential source of
ignition in a fuel tank, possible fire, and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 requires checking the clearance between
forward fuel probes No. 1 and aft probe No. 3 and the forward fuel tank
structure, by measuring each probe's distance to the adjacent skin, and
adjusting the clearance, including reinstallation of the probes at the
correct distance if necessary. This material 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined 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 Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 described previously, as incorporated by
reference.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and the European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to develop a process to use certain EASA
ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with
requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated
with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities to use this
process. As a result, Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 will be incorporated
by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore,
require compliance with Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 in its entirety,
through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service
information specified in Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 that is required
for compliance with Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 will be available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0334 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 80 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  $0  Up to $1,700..............  Up to $136,000.
 $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 has 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):

Gulfstream Aerospace LP: Docket No. FAA-2020-0334; Product
Identifier 2020-NM-014-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by June 11, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model
Gulfstream G280 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR-I-53-
19-10-5, dated October 10, 2019 (``Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of inadequate clearance between
the fuel probes and forward fuel tank structure. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address such inadequate clearance, which could result in
a potential source of ignition in a fuel tank, possible fire, and
consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5.

(h) Exceptions and Clarifications of Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5

    (1) Where Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 requires operators to
``check . . . clearance between fuel probes and forward fuel tank
structure,'' this AD requires measuring the specified probes'
distance to the adjacent skin.
    (3) Where Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 requires operators to
``adjust clearance'' for the corrective action, this AD requires
reinstallation of the probe at the correct distance.
    (4) Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5 requires compliance ``at the
next suitable planned maintenance inspection within the next 36
months.'' This AD requires compliance within 36 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (5) The rework (reinstallation of the fuel probes at the correct
distance) required for inadequate clearance must be done before
further flight after the measurement.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or the CAAI; or
CAAI's authorized Designee. If approved by the CAAI Designee, the
approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about Israeli AD ISR-I-53-19-10-5, contact
the CAAI, Mr. Vladimir Novicov, Engineering Branch, CAAI--P.O. Box
1101, 3 Golan Street, Airport City, Israel, 70151, telephone 972-3-
9774529, fax 972-3-9774592; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find
this incorporated by reference (IBR) material on the CAAI website at
www.caa.gov.il. You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0334.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on April 16, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08751 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21009-21010]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

April 13, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No.: 349-106.
    c. Date filed: March 22, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Martin Dam Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Tallapoosa River in
Coosa and Elmore Counties, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Keith E. Bryant, 600 18th Street North,
Birmingham, AL 35203,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: May 15, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-349-106) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests Commission
approval of a permit application, filed by the North Lake Condo Club,
to build three uncovered floating boat dock structures providing a
total of 42 bays for boats. Each bay will measure approximately 10 feet
wide by 23 feet long. There will be no dredging associated with this
project.

    l. Location of Application: The filing is available for review at
the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
(866) 208-3676 or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6036 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 2072]
[DOCID:fr11ja08-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57100; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
To Incorporate Certain Definitions of Exchange Act Rules 13d-1 and 13d-
3 Into NYSE Rule 460

January 4, 2008.
    On September 28, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``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 amend NYSE Rule 460 to incorporate definitions
from Rules 13d-1(i) and (j) and 13d-3 under the Act \3\ for the purpose
of determining whether a specialist is a beneficial owner of an equity
security in which the specialist is registered and to make non-
substantive, clarifying amendments to the rule. On October 29, 2007,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The
proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 19, 2007.\4\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1(i); 17 CFR 240.13d-1(j); and 17 CFR
240.13d-3.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56777 (November 9,
2007), 72 FR 65117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\5\ and, in
particular, the requirement of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ that the
rules of an exchange are designed to, among other things, prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
notes that NYSE Rule 460 does not currently provide definitions for the
terms ``equity security,'' ``outstanding shares,'' and ``beneficial
owner.'' As amended, NYSE Rule 460 would apply to these terms the
meanings set forth, respectively, in Rules 13d-1(i), 13d-1(j), and 13d-
3, under the Act,\7\ thereby conforming the usage of these terms in
NYSE Rule 460 to their usage in specified Commission rules. The
proposed rule change also makes clarifying, non-substantive changes.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1(i); 17 CFR 240.13d-1(j); and 17 CFR
240.13d-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2007-87), as
modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-304 Filed 1-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5163-5169]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74135; File No. SR-C2-2015-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the Fees Schedule

January 26, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 14, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.\3\ First, the
Exchange proposes to amend Taker fees for simple, non-complex orders in
all multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT).
Currently, for such orders, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.44 for
Public Customers and $0.45 to C2 Market-Makers as well as orders from
all other origins. The Exchange proposes to increase these fee amounts
by $0.03 for all market participants, resulting in a fee of $0.47 per
contract for Public Customer orders and $0.48 per contract for orders
from C2 Market-Makers and all other origins. The reason for the
proposed change is for competitive reasons. Additionally, the Exchange
notes that the proposed fee amounts are equivalent to, and in some
cases lower than, those assessed for similar orders by other
exchanges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ C2 initially filed the proposed fee change on December 31,
2014 (SR-C2-2014-030). On January 14, 2015, C2 withdrew that filing
and submitted this filing. All fee amounts described herein are per
contract unless otherwise noted.
    \4\ See The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'') Price List, which lists fees for Customer orders that
remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at $0.48 per contract and
non-Penny Pilot options at $0.85 per contract, and for non-Customer
orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at $0.49 per
contact and non-Penny Pilot options at $0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to raise, from $0.35 per contract to
$0.45 per contract, the Taker fee for complex orders from C2 Market-
Makers and all other origins (Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/
Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.) except Public Customers in
multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT). The
Exchange desires to impose this increase on orders from C2 Market-
Makers and all other origins and not on Public Customers due to market
forces. The Exchange notes that Customer order flow enhances liquidity
on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
Specifically, Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing
preferential pricing to Public Customers. Finally, the proposed fee
amount is in the range of, and in some cases much lower than, those
assessed for similar orders by other exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NOM Price List, which lists fees for orders from market
participants other than Customers that remove liquidity in Penny
Pilot options at $0.49 per contract and non-Penny Pilot options at
$0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new fees structure for simple,
non-complex orders in equity options classes. Currently, the Exchange's
fees and rebates for such orders are determined by formulas that take
into account factors such as the C2 BBO Market Width, type of market
participant, and size of the order. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
that fees structure and replace it with a more traditional, simple
Maker/Taker fee and rebate structure, one that mirrors the structure
(and even the fee amounts) of that which applies to simple, non-complex
orders in multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes. The
proposed new Section 1B of the Exchange Fees Schedule would describe
this new structure as follows:
    The following rates apply to simple, non-complex orders in all
equity options classes. Listed rates are per contract.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Maker      Taker fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer...............................     * ($.37)         $.47
C2 Market-Maker...............................     * ($.40)         $.48
All Other Origins (Professional Customer,          * ($.35)         $.48
 Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker,
 JBO, etc.)...................................
Trades on the Open............................         $.00         $.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Rebates do not apply to orders that trade with Public Customer complex
  orders. In such a circumstance, there will be no fee or rebate.

    The Exchange believes that this proposed new fee and rebate
structure will make it easier for market participants to determine what
their fees will be. The Exchange also believes that the proposed new
structure will better allow the Exchange to compete for, and attract
more, trading flow. The rebates offered are intended to incentivize C2
Market-Makers to quote competitively on the Exchange and to attract
market participants to send orders to the Exchange, which will then
incent Takers to trade with those orders and quotes. The differences
between the Maker rebates and Taker fees are intended to cover the
costs associated with operating the Exchange's trading systems
necessary to provide these trading opportunities. Further, the amounts
of these rebates and fees are as, or more, beneficial to C2 market
participants in many circumstances as those offered on other
exchanges.\6\ The Exchange proposes to not provide a rebate to simple
orders in equity options that trade with Public Customer complex orders
in equity options because the Exchange also proposes to provide a
rebate for Public Customer complex orders, and it would not be
economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an order that is
trading with an order that is not generating a fee (as this would
result in a net negative for the Exchange). In such a circumstance,
there will be no fee or rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Options Fee Schedule,
which lists, for electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, 1) the
standard Customer Maker rebate of $0.25 per contract versus a Taker
fee of $0.47, 2) the standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of
$0.28 versus a Taker fee of $0.49, and 3) the standard Firm and
Broker Dealer Maker rebate of $0.10 versus a Taker fee of $0.49; and
for electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues, 1) the standard
Customer Maker rebate of $0.75 versus a Taker fee of $0.85, 2) the
standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of $0.05 versus a Taker
fee of $0.87, and 3) the standard Firm and Broker Dealer Maker fee
of $0.50 versus a Taker fee of $0.89 (it should be noted that all
fee and rebate amounts described in this footnote are the standard
amounts listed on the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and do not take
into account any NYSE Arca programs that provide rebates or credits
to NYSE Arca market participants based on volume transacted on NYSE
Arca or other such NYSE Arca programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new fees structure for
complex orders in equity options classes. Currently, Section 1D of the
Exchange Fees Schedule states: ``For all complex order transactions in
equity options classes, all components of such transactions (including
simple, non-complex orders and/or quotes that execute against a complex
order) will be assessed no fee (or rebate).'' The Exchange proposes to
delete this language and instead adopt a Maker/Taker fee and rebate
structure for complex orders in equity options

classes, one that mirrors the structure (and even the fee amounts) of
that which applies to complex orders in multiply-listed index, ETF and
ETN options classes. The following rates apply to complex orders in
equity options classes. Listed rates are per contract.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Maker fee/   Taker fee/
                                                  (rebate)     (rebate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer...............................     * ($.35)     * ($.35)
C2 Market-Maker...............................         $.10         $.45
All Other Origins (Professional Customer,              $.20         $.45
 Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker,
 JBO, etc.)...................................
Trades on the Open............................         $.00         $.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this change is to align and improve the Exchange's
competitive position in relation to other exchanges. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to denote in an asterisk on the Fees Schedule that
the rebate will only apply to Public Customer complex orders that trade
with non-Public Customer complex orders. In other circumstances, there
will be no Maker or Taker fee or rebate. This is because, if the
Exchange offered the rebate when a Public Customer complex order trades
with another Public Customer complex order, the Exchange would be
providing a rebate on both sides of the order. It would not be
economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an order that is
trading with an order that is not generating a fee (as this would
result in a net negative for the Exchange). Finally, the amounts of
these rebates and fees are as, or more, beneficial to C2 market
participants in many circumstances as those offered on other
exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Boston Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Fee Schedule,
Section III, which denotes that BOX Market-Makers can pay anywhere
from $0.10 to $0.80 for a complex order execution (depending on the
type of order it executes against and the options class), with most
described fees listed at least $0.40, and orders from all other
origins (not including Public Customers) can pay anywhere from $0.20
to $0.80 for a complex order execution (depending on the type of
order it executes against and the options class), with most
described fees listed at least $0.40 and a few listed at $0.80. See
also NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule, Section II,
under which Public Customers receive no rebate for complex order
executions in multiply-listed equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Just as the Exchange handles complex orders in multiply-listed
index, ETF and ETN options classes, for transactions in which simple,
non-complex orders execute against a complex order, each component of
the complex order will be assessed the complex order fees listed in
Section 1D of this Fees Schedule, while the simple, non-complex orders
will be assessed the transaction fees listed in Section 1B of this Fees
Schedule. For transactions in which a complex order executes against
another complex order, each component of the complex order will be
assessed the complex order fees listed in Section 1D of this Fees
Schedule. This follows common sense; when a market participant submits
an order, he likely does not know whether it will trade with a simple
or complex order, and should get assessed the fee amount applicable to
the type of order he submits, regardless of what type of order with
which it trades.
    As with complex orders in multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes, for executions that occur within the Complex Order
Auction (``COA'') against auction responses, the incoming/auctioned
order is considered maker, and auction responses are considered taker.
This is because the incoming/auctioned order is the one creating
trading interest, and the response is taking that interest.
    For the newly-proposed fees structures that apply to both simple
and complex orders in equity options, the Exchange proposes to assess
no fees and offer no rebates for Trades on the Open. Trades on the Open
involve the matching of undisplayed pre-opening trading interest. As
such, there is, in effect, no Maker or Taker activity occurring. The
Exchange would like to encourage users to submit pre-opening orders.
The Exchange also does not assess fees or offer rebates for Trades on
the Open in multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (for
both simple and complex orders).
    The Exchange also proposes to raise the PULSe On-Floor Workstation
(``PULSe'') fee. Currently, the Exchange charges a fee of $350 per
month for the first 10 users of a Permit Holder workstation and $100
per month for all subsequent users. Permit Holders may also make the
workstation available to their customers, which may include non-broker
dealer public customers and non-Permit Holder broker dealers (referred
to herein as ``non-Permit Holders''). For such non-Permit Holders
workstations, the Exchange charges a fee of $350 per month per
workstation. The Exchange proposes raising the PULSe On-Floor
Workstation fee from $350 per month to $400 per month for both Permit
Holder and non-Permit Holder workstations. The Exchange expended
significant resources developing PULSe, and intends to recoup some of
those costs.
    As the Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to set
transaction fees and rebates for equity options at the same rates as
those for multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes, the
Exchange therefore also proposes to standardize Linkage Routing fees
for equity options and multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options.
Currently, Section 2 of the Exchange Fees Schedule states that $0.65
per routed contract in addition to applicable C2 taker fee (excluding
Public Customer orders in equity options classes). For Public Customer
orders in equity options classes, C2 shall pass through the actual
transaction fee assessed by the exchange(s) to which the order was
routed. In order to achieve the above-mentioned standardization, as
well as cover the costs associated with managing the Exchange's Linkage
systems and processes, the Exchange proposes to delete the language
that excludes Public Customer orders in equity classes from the stated
fee that applies to all other Linkage routing and provides a separate
fee structure for such orders.\8\ Going forward, the Exchange proposes
to merely state in Section 2 of the Fees Schedule that the Linkage
Routing fee will be ``$0.65 per routed contract in addition to
applicable C2 taker fee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As such, the Exchange proposes to delete the language
``(excluding Public Customer orders in equity options classes). For
Public Customer orders in equity options classes, C2 shall pass
through the actual transaction fee assessed by the exchange(s) to
which the order was routed'' from Section 2 of the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as of January 2, 2015, the Exchange no longer lists Mini-
Options. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete from the Fees
Schedule all references to Mini-Options, as such references are no
longer necessary and will be obsolete.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Public Customers as compared to
other market participants and to provide higher rebates to Public
Customers as compared to other market participants other than Market-
Makers in some circumstances because as noted above, Public Customer
order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all
market participants. Specifically, Public Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants. The fees and rebates offered to Public Customers are
intended to attract more Public Customer trading volume to the
Exchange. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of
providing preferential pricing to Public Customers, and the Exchange's
current Fees Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees
structures of many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as
applying to Public Customers will be applied equally to all Public
Customers (meaning that all Public Customers will be assessed the same
amount).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to, in some circumstances, assess lower fees to Market-
Makers as compared to other market participants other than Public
Customers and provide higher rebates to C2 Market-Makers as compared to
other market participants because C2 Market-Makers, unlike other C2
market participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting
obligations, that other market participants do not have. Further, these
lower fees and higher rebates offered to C2 Market-Makers are intended
to incent C2 Market-Makers to quote and trade more on C2, thereby
providing more trading opportunities for all C2 market participants.
Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to C2 Market-Makers will be
applied equally to all C2 Market-Makers (meaning that all C2 Market-
Makers will be assessed the same amount). This concept also applies to
orders from all other origins. It should also be noted that all fee
amounts described herein are intended to attract greater order flow to
the Exchange, which should therefore serve to benefit all Exchange
market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increases to Taker fees for
simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes (except RUT) are reasonable because the proposed fee
amounts are equivalent to, and in some cases lower than, those assessed
for similar orders by other exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NOM Price List, which lists fees for Customer orders
that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at $0.48 per contract
and non-Penny Pilot options at $0.85 per contract, and for non-
Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at
$0.49 per contact and non-Penny Pilot options at $0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the Taker fee
for complex orders from C2 Market-Makers and all other origins
(Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO,
etc.) except Public Customers in multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes (except RUT) is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed fee amount is in the range of, and
in some cases much lower than, those assessed for similar orders by
other exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NOM Price List, which lists fees for orders from market
participants other than Customers that remove liquidity in Penny
Pilot options at $0.49 per contract and non-Penny Pilot options at
$0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee and rebate
structure for simple, non-complex orders in equity options is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange also believes that the proposed new structure will better
allow the Exchange to compete for, and attract more, trading flow,
which will benefit all C2 market participants. The rebates offered are
intended to encourage C2 Market-Makers to quote more often and attract
market participants to send orders to the Exchange, which will then
incent Takers to trade with those orders and quotes. The Exchange
believes that the proposed new fee and rebate structure is also
reasonable because it may make it easier for market participants to
determine what their fees will be. The Exchange believes that the
differences between the Maker rebates and Taker fees are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are intended to
cover the costs associated with operating the Exchange's trading
systems necessary to provide these trading opportunities. Further, the
amounts of these rebates and fees are as, or more, beneficial to C2
market participants in many circumstances as those offered on other
exchanges.\14\ The Exchange believes that its proposal to not provide a
rebate for simple orders in equity options that trade with Public
Customer complex orders in equity options is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange also proposes to
provide a rebate for Public Customer complex orders, and it would not
be economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an order that
is trading with an order that is not generating a fee (as this would
result in a net negative for the Exchange). Finally, the Exchange
believes that the proposed new fee and rebate structure for simple,
non-complex orders in equity options is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the structure and fee amounts are identical to
those which apply to simple, non-complex orders in multiply-listed
index, ETF and ETN options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, which lists, for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, (1) the standard
Customer Maker rebate of $0.25 per contract versus a Taker fee of
$0.47, (2) the standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of $0.28
versus a Taker fee of $0.49, and (3) the standard Firm and Broker
Dealer Maker rebate of $0.10 versus a Taker fee of $0.49; and for
electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues, (1) the standard
Customer Maker rebate of $0.75 versus a Taker fee of $0.85, (2) the
standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of $0.05 versus a Taker
fee of $0.87, and (3) the standard Firm and Broker Dealer Maker fee
of $0.50 versus a Taker fee of $0.89 (it should be noted that all
fee and rebate amounts described in this footnote are the standard
amounts listed on the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and do not take
into account any NYSE Arca programs that provide rebates or credits
to NYSE Arca market participants based on volume transacted on NYSE
Arca or other such NYSE Arca programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee and rebate
structure for complex orders in equity options is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange also believes that
the lower fees for C2 Market-Maker orders as compared to other market
participants other than Public Customers will encourage C2 Market-
Makers to quote more often and send more orders to the Exchange,
thereby providing more liquidity and trading opportunities for other
market participants. The Exchange believes that offering a rebate for
Public Customer

complex orders, whether Maker or Taker, will attract Public Customer
orders to the Exchange. Since other market participants prefer to trade
with Public Customer orders, this will in turn attract other market
participants to send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the differences between the Maker and Taker fees are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are intended to
cover the costs associated with operating the Exchange's trading
systems necessary to provide these trading opportunities. The Exchange
believes that not offering a rebate to Public Customer complex orders
that trade with other Public Customer orders is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because this would result in the
Exchange providing a rebate on both sides of a transaction, and it
would not be economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an
order that is trading with an order that is not generating a fee (as
this would result in a net negative for the Exchange). Further, the
amounts of these rebates and fees are as, or more, beneficial to C2
market participants in many circumstances as those offered on other
exchanges.\15\ Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed new fee
and rebate structure for complex orders in equity options is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the structure and fee amounts
are identical to those which apply to complex orders in multiply-listed
index, ETF and ETN options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BOX Fee Schedule, Section III, which denotes that BOX
Market-Makers can pay anywhere from $0.10 to $0.80 for a complex
order execution (depending on the type of order it executes against
and the options class), with most described fees listed at at least
$0.40, and orders from all other origins (not including Public
Customers) can pay anywhere from $0.20 to $0.80 for a complex order
execution (depending on the type of order it executes against and
the options class), with most described fees listed at at least
$0.40 and many [sic] listed at $0.80. See also PHLX Pricing
Schedule, Section II, under which Public Customers receive no rebate
for complex order executions in multiply-listed equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee and provide no rebate for
Trades on the Open in equity options, both simple and complex orders,
because this is in line with the treatment of Trades on the Open in
multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes. Further, all market
participants will be subject to this same treatment.
    The Exchange believes increasing the PULSe fee from $350 per month
to $400 per month for the first 10 users of a Permit Holder workstation
and from $350 to $400 per month per workstation for non-Permit Holder
workstations is reasonable because the Exchange expended significant
resources developing PULSe and desires to recoup some of those costs.
This change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
market participants who desire to use PULSe will be assessed the same
fee.
    The Exchange believes that deleting the exception for Public
Customer equity options orders from the standard Linkage Routing fee is
reasonable because, while this change removes an exception, it merely
makes Linkage Routing fees the same amount for all orders sent through
the Linkage, regardless of the type of market participant sending the
order or product. Indeed, this $0.65 fee amount (plus applicable Taker
fee) is reasonable because it is the amount that is currently being
assessed to all market participants for all other orders, including to
Public Customers for orders in multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes. Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed change
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
standardize the Linkage Routing fee, meaning that this fee structure
will apply to all C2 market participants trading both options and
multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes.
    Finally, the Exchange believes removing all references to Mini-
Options, which have been delisted, maintains clarity in the Fees
Schedule and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
eliminating potential confusion and removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that any circumstances in which the Exchange assesses a lower fee, or
provides a higher rebate, to Public Customers will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because Public Customers order
flow as discussed above enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the
benefit of all market participants.. These lower fees and higher
rebates offered to Public Customers are intended to attract more Public
Customer trading volume to the Exchange. This, in turn, would increase
liquidity and trading opportunities for other market participants on
C2, and provide these other market participants with greater
opportunity to trade with Public Customer orders. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that these lower fees and higher rebates for Public
Customers should serve to benefit all C2 market participants. Moreover,
the options industry has a long history of providing preferential
pricing to Public Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees Schedule
currently does so in many places, as do the fees structures of many
other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to Public
Customers will be applied equally to all Public Customers (meaning that
all Public Customers will be assessed the same amount).
    The Exchange does not believe that any circumstances in which the
Exchange assesses a lower fee, or provides a higher rebate, to C2
Market-Makers will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because C2 Market-Makers, unlike other C2 market participants, take on
a number of obligations, including quoting obligations, that other
market participants do not have. Further, these lower fees and higher
rebates offered to C2 Market-Makers are intended to incent C2 Market-
Makers to quote and trade more on C2, thereby providing more trading
opportunities for all C2 market participants. Finally, all fee amounts
listed as applying to C2 Market-Makers will be applied equally to all
C2 Market-Makers (meaning that all C2 Market-Makers will be assessed
the same amount). This concept also applies to orders from all other
origins.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed increases to Taker
fees for simple, non-complex orders in all multiply-listed index, ETF
and ETN options classes (except RUT) will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because they only apply to
trading on the Exchange. Further, these proposed fee amounts are
equivalent to, and in some cases lower than, those assessed for similar
orders by other exchanges \16\, and therefore shall continue to
encourage competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NOM Price List, which lists fees for Customer orders
that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at $0.48 per contract
and non-Penny Pilot options at $0.85 per contract, and for non-
Customer orders that remove liquidity in Penny Pilot options at
$0.49 per contact and non-Penny Pilot options at $0.89 per contract.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed increase in the
Taker fee for complex orders from C2 Market-Makers and all other
origins (Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-
Maker, JBO, etc.) except Public Customers in multiply-listed index, ETF
and ETN options classes (except RUT) will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange. Further, the proposed fee amount is in the
range of, and in some cases much lower than, those assessed for similar
orders by other exchanges,\17\ and therefore should continue to
encourage competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NOM Price List, which lists fees for orders from market
participants other than Customers that remove liquidity in Penny
Pilot options at $0.49 per contract and non-Penny Pilot options at
$0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new fee and rebate
structure for simple orders in equity options will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
new structure will better allow the Exchange to compete for, and
attract more, trading flow, thereby enhancing competition. Along those
lines, the amounts of these rebates and fees are as, or more,
beneficial to C2 market participants in many circumstances as those
offered on other exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, which lists, for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, (1) the standard
Customer Maker rebate of $0.25 per contract versus a Taker fee of
$0.47, (2) the standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of $0.28
versus a Taker fee of $0.49, and (3) the standard Firm and Broker
Dealer Maker rebate of $0.10 versus a Taker fee of $0.49; and for
electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues, (1) the standard
Customer Maker rebate of $0.75 versus a Taker fee of $0.85, (2) the
standard NYSE Arca Market Maker Maker rebate of $0.05 versus a Taker
fee of $0.87, and (3) the standard Firm and Broker Dealer Maker fee
of $0.50 versus a Taker fee of $0.89 (it should be noted that all
fee and rebate amounts described in this footnote are the standard
amounts listed on the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and do not take
into account any NYSE Arca programs that provide rebates or credits
to NYSE Arca market participants based on volume transacted on NYSE
Arca or other such NYSE Arca programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new fee and rebate
structure for complex orders in equity options will impose any burden
on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
new structure will better allow the Exchange to compete for, and
attract more, trading flow, thereby enhancing competition.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to assess no fees
and provide no rebates for Trades on the Open because will impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only applies to
trading on the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that this
proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because it applies equally to all market participants.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the
Linkage Routing fee will impose any burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the new proposed fee structure will apply to all market
participants. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to
the Linkage Routing fee will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it only applies to trading on the Exchange
and orders sent from the Exchange to other exchanges via Linkage.
    Should any of the proposed changes make C2 a more attractive
trading venue for market participants at other exchanges, such market
participants may elect to become market participants at C2.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2015-001 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-C2-2015-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 20, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01754 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49554]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Balaton Power, Inc. and Flying Eagle PU
Technical Corp. (f/k/a Sooner Holdings, Inc.); Order of Suspension of
Trading

August 19, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Balaton Power, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 31, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Flying Eagle PU Technical Corp. (f/k/a Sooner Holdings, Inc.) because
it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December
31, 2011.
    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. EDT
on August 19, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 2, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19965 Filed 8-19-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


_____________________

Ex Parte Meeting Summary:  Ozone NAAQS

Date:  December 20, 2007, 1:00 – 1:45 pm

Attendees:

Visitors:

The Honorable James Martin

Governor, State of North Carolina

(representing the National Association of Manufacturers)

EPA attendees:

George Gray, ORD

Pamela Williams, ORD

John Vandenberg, ORD

Ila Cote, ORD

Mary Ross, ORD

Debra Walsh, ORD

Summary of discussion:

Governor Martin provided a brief summary of his professional background
(former chemistry professor, Congressman, Governor) and that he had
provided a letter to the Administrator stating he did not support
revising the ozone standard.

Governor Martin stated it was important to focus on the most important
things, which he identified as:

ozone has a natural background

progress had been made to reduce ozone levels around the US, with a few
hundred locations not meeting the standard now

making progress with support of industry was important when costs
exceeded benefits, and countervailing costs needed to be considered
(e.g., to the economy)

Governor Martin then summarized his views related to the science on
ozone:

epidemiology – concerns regarding validity and publication bias

clinical studies – concerns that a clinical study [Adams] at 60 ppb
with some FEV changes and coughing was not the same as 60 ppb in ambient
air. He stated that 60 ppb in the laboratory was like 100 ppb in ambient
air.

costs were 20-25 Billion dollars to meet standards, high cost to economy
at current standard

need to look at real, not imaginary “wolves”

background ozone levels that are discussed in ozone proposal were a
concern, the policy relevant background levels are presented as very
low.   The proposal indicating policy relevant background may be as low
as 20 ppb makes it seem like there is more opportunity to improve air
quality than truly exists.   Spikes in natural background show
variability in PRB, with the 4th worse level being around 75 ppb in 100
cities, thus there was little room for air quality improvement.

He stated that if the Administrator believes the 20 ppb PRB, then it
would only be logical to set the standard at 22 ppb, and yet nobody
believes this is needed.

Governor Martin concluded that in his discussions with many governors,
there was a lot of concern about the potential impacts of tighter ozone
standards on state economies.  He stated the Administrator needed solid
evidence to change the standards.

Dr. Gray thanked Governor Martin for his time, noted that the
Administrator had not made a decision on the ozone NAAQS, and that his
comments were appreciated and would be considered.