[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5472-5476]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01967]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71407; File Nos. SR-FINRA-2013-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving the Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Participation on the Alternative Display Facility

January 27, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On July 18, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA Rules 6271 and 6272 regarding the
requirements for members seeking registration as FINRA Alternative
Display Facility (``ADF'') Market Participants (the ``Proposal'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 1, 2013.\3\ The Commission received three comment letters on the
Proposal.\4\ FINRA responded to each of the three comment letters
individually.\5\ On September 10, 2013, the Commission extended the
time period in which to either approve, disapprove, or to institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposal,
to October 30, 2013.\6\ On October 30, 2013, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
Proposal.\7\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70048 (July 26,
2013), 78 FR 46652 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from David Harris, Chairman and CEO, National Stock Exchange, Inc.,
dated September 9, 2013 (``NSX Letter''), letter to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from David Harris, Chairman and CEO,
National Stock Exchange, Inc., dated November 26, 2013 (``NSX Letter
II''), and letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, Executive Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, General Counsel, NYSE Markets, dated January 7, 2014
(``NYSE Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Stephanie M. Dumont, Senior Vice President and Director of
Capital Markets Policy, FINRA, dated October 25, 2013 (``FINRA
Response''); Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Stephanie M. Dumont, Senior Vice President and Director of
Capital Markets Policy, FINRA, dated December 11, 2013 (``FINRA
Response II''); and letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, from Stephanie M. Dumont, Senior Vice President and
Director of Capital Markets Policy, FINRA, dated January 23, 2014
(``FINRA Response III'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70358, 78 FR 56967
(September 16, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-031).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70776, 78 FR 66405
(November 5, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

Current ADF Registration Requirements

    The ADF is a quotation collection and trade reporting facility.
According to FINRA, the ADF provides (1) ADF market participants (i.e.,
ADF-registered market makers (``ADF Market Makers'') or electronic
communications networks (``ECNs'' and, with ``ADF Market Makers'',
``ADF Market Participants'')) with the ability to post quotations or
display orders in NMS stocks and (2) all member firms that participate
in the ADF the ability to view quotations and report transactions in
NMS stocks to the Securities Information Processors (``SIPs'') for
consolidation and dissemination of data to vendors and ADF Market
Participants.\8\ FINRA states that the ADF is also designed to deliver
real-time data to FINRA for regulatory purposes, including enforcement
of

requirements imposed by Regulation NMS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, 78 FR at 46652. The ADF was initially approved
by the Commission on July, 24, 2002, in connection with the SEC's
approval of SuperMontage and Nasdaq's registration as a national
securities exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46249
(July 24, 2002), 67 FR 49822 (July 31, 2002); see also NASD Notice
to Members 02-45 (August 2002). At that time, the ADF was approved
for Nasdaq-listed securities for a nine-month pilot period to
provide FINRA members with an alternative to the Nasdaq systems for
reporting quotations and transactions in Nasdaq UTP Plan securities.
On September 28, 2006, the SEC approved amendments to extend the
ADF's functionality to all NMS stocks. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54537 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59173 (October 6,
2006); see also NASD Notice to Members 06-67 (November 2006). The
ADF was approved on a permanent basis for NMS stocks on January 26,
2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55181 (January 26,
2007), 72 FR 5093 (February 2, 2007).
    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA rules provide that ADF Market Participants (i.e., either
registered reporting ADF Market Makers or registered reporting ADF
ECNs) \10\ must register as ADF market makers or ECNs before making a
market or displaying orders on the ADF.\11\ Members are required to
register as ADF Market Participants by applying to FINRA, which
includes certifying the member's good standing with FINRA and
demonstrating compliance with the net capital and other financial
responsibility provisions of the Act.\12\ Before displaying quotations
or orders on the ADF, ADF Trading Centers \13\ must also execute and
comply with a Certification Record to certify the ADF Trading Center's
compliance efforts with its obligations under Regulation NMS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA Rule 6220(a)(3), (12), (13).
    \11\ See FINRA Rule 6271.
    \12\ See FINRA Rule 6271(b).
    \13\ An ``ADF Trading Center'' is a registered reporting ADF
Market Maker or registered reporting ADF ECN that is a ``Trading
Center,'' as defined in Rule 600(b)(78) of SEC Regulation NMS, and
that is certified to display its quotations or orders through the
ADF. See FINRA Rule 6220(a)(4); see also 17 CFR 242.600(b)(87).
    \14\ See FINRA Rules 6220(a)(5), 6250(a)(7); NASD Notice to
Members 06-67 (November 2006); see also SR-NASD-2006-091, Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status of the ADF and Other FINRA Transparency Facilities

    According to FINRA, no member has registered with FINRA as a
registered reporting ADF Market Maker since the ADF was launched in
2002, and there have been four members that, at various points in time,
were registered as Registered Reporting ADF ECNs.\15\ Since the second
quarter of 2010, FINRA states that there have been no ADF Market
Participants.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, 78 FR at 46653.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that in 2011, it began the process of updating and
migrating all of its transparency facilities (including the FINRA Trade
Reporting Facilities, the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE''), and the ADF) off of independent technology platforms and
onto a new, single, updated technology platform known as the Multi
Product Platform (``MPP'').\17\ FINRA originally scheduled the
migration of the ADF onto MPP last, anticipating onboarding of a new
ADF Market Participant no sooner than mid-2014.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id. After the ADF is migrated to MPP, however, FINRA
claims that it will only have the ADF base infrastructure completed.
FINRA estimates that it would take at least an additional six months
to complete further specific build-outs necessary to accommodate an
individual ADF Market Participant seeking to quote on or report
trades to the ADF. To determine the specific build-outs necessary to
support a new ADF Market Participant, a member would need to provide
FINRA with estimated volume projections of quotation and trade
reporting activity that would flow through the ADF. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FINRA, several of its members have discussed the
possibility with FINRA of becoming an ADF Market Participant, and some
have asked whether the migration of the ADF to MPP could be
accelerated.\19\ FINRA states that such acceleration requires delaying
the migration of other FINRA facilities onto MPP, reallocating
resources, shifting scheduling, and implementing ADF-specific
enhancements and hosting in the new technology environment--all of
which, in turn, impose significant costs on FINRA, including prolonging
the substantially higher expenses associated with the legacy OTC Equity
Trade Reporting Facility (``ORF'') infrastructure (i.e., legacy ORF
support costs are significantly higher than the expected costs of
supporting the ORF in the new MPP technology environment).\20\ In
addition to the costs of accelerating the migration of the ADF onto
MPP, FINRA claims that bringing the new ADF base infrastructure live in
the MPP technology environment to accommodate an ADF Market Participant
will impose significant direct costs on FINRA related to building and
testing the new ADF component on the MPP infrastructure and also
related to paying for SIP capacity usage allocations as well as various
related costs.\21\ FINRA estimates that the MPP component re-sequencing
necessary to accommodate ADF acceleration and the costs associated with
bringing the ADF base infrastructure live will conservatively cost
FINRA in excess of $3 million.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to the ADF Rules

    FINRA proposes to consolidate into a single rule (FINRA Rule 6271)
the existing requirements that a member must meet to register as an ADF
Market Participant and introduce new requirements that potential ADF
Market Participants must meet to participate on the ADF. According to
FINRA, these new requirements are intended to mitigate the substantial
financial risks to FINRA of accelerating the migration of the ADF onto
MPP or of building out the ADF base platform to accommodate an ADF
Market Participant.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. For example, FINRA Rule 6271 would specify that a
member seeking registration as an ADF Market Participant must file
an application with FINRA, execute the Certification Record, and
execute a Participant Agreement. Rule 6271(a)(1) would require a
potential ADF Market Participant to file an application with FINRA
in which the member would provide various specifications and
certifications.
    The first three requirements of the application, which specify
whether the member is seeking registration in Nasdaq and/or CQS
securities, certify the member's good standing with FINRA, and
demonstrate compliance with the net capital and other financial
responsibility provisions of the Act, are the same as the
requirements currently in Rule 6271(b). The Proposal would also
codify other current requirements into a single rule. See id., 78 FR
at 46654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADF Deposit Amount

    The Proposal would, in part, add several new requirements into the
application that members must complete to become ADF Market
Participants. The new provisions require that a member seeking to
become an ADF Market Participant: (i) Provide FINRA with reasonable
monthly projections of the volume of data that the member anticipates
submitting to the ADF; (ii) agree to submit the ADF Deposit Amount \24\
in

five equal installments into an escrow account at a bank mutually
acceptable to the member and FINRA on a timetable as agreed to by the
member and FINRA (the ``ADF Escrow Account''); (iii) agree that failing
to submit quotes and report trades to the ADF for a two-year period
(the ``ADF Quoting Term'') will result in the forfeiture of some or all
of the ADF Deposit Amount; (iv) agree that failing to submit 75% of the
member's trade and quote volume in NMS stocks to the ADF (the ``ADF
Quoting Requirement'') will result in the forfeiture of some or all of
the ADF Deposit Amount; and (v) agree to the other ADF Deposit Terms
set forth in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Proposal requires potential ADF Market Participants to
agree to submit an ``ADF Deposit Amount'' in five equal installments
into an escrow account. The proposed rule change defines the ``ADF
Deposit Amount'' as $500,000 if the member requests that FINRA
accelerate the ADF migration or if the member begins quoting on or
reporting trades to the ADF within 90 calendar days after an ADF
Market Participant that requested acceleration of the ADF migration
begins quoting on or reporting trades to the ADF. For all other ADF
Participants, the ADF Deposit Amount is $250,000. FINRA claims that
this is designed to ensure that applicable volume commitments are
met.
    FINRA is proposing to establish the two separate levels of the
ADF Deposit Amount to reflect the differing costs FINRA claims it
will incur under either of two scenarios. Because FINRA states that
it will incur significantly higher costs if the migration of the ADF
is accelerated at a member's request, FINRA has proposed an ADF
Deposit Amount of $500,000 should the member request such
acceleration. Additionally, to ensure that ADF Market Participants
benefitting from an acceleration of the ADF onto MPP are treated
equally, FINRA proposes to charge $500,000 to any member that begins
quoting on or reporting trades to the ADF within ninety (90) days
after an existing ADF Market Participant that requested acceleration
of the ADF migration begins quoting on or reporting trades to the
ADF. According to FINRA, this amount, which, as noted above, FINRA
claims is substantially lower than the actual costs FINRA will incur
by amending the current MPP migration schedule reflects an
appropriate balance between ensuring that FINRA is able to recover a
portion of the costs associated with an accelerated migration while
not representing a significant financial barrier to participation on
the ADF, particularly since members can potentially recover 100% of
the ADF Deposit Amount over the two-year term and up to 80% of the
ADF Deposit Amount in the first quarter of their participation on
the ADF through the credit structure for market data revenue
described below. Moreover, FINRA believes that permitting potential
participants to earn back the entire deposit amount is more
equitable than charging potential ADF Market Participants a one-time
payment without the ability to recover some, or all, of the amount.
The Proposal reduces the ADF Deposit Amount to $250,000 if the
member has not requested an accelerated migration or does not become
an ADF Market Participant within 90 days after another ADF Market
Participant that had requested acceleration (i.e., paid an escrow
amount of $500,000) begins quoting on or reporting trades to the
ADF. According to FINRA, the lower amount reflects the fact that the
costs to FINRA are significantly reduced under these circumstances
because the ADF base platform will have already been migrated to
MPP. However, although reduced, FINRA anticipates such costs will
still be significantly higher than the $250,000 deposit amount in
such a scenario based on costs related to possible additional
hardware and software deployments, paying for SIP capacity usage
allocations, and costs related to general staff labor, support and
testing. See Notice, 78 FR at 46654-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA contends that these new provisions are designed to ensure
that FINRA can recover a portion of the costs associated with
accelerating the migration of the ADF to MPP and bringing a new ADF
Market Participant onto the ADF if the ADF Market Participant fails to
participate on the ADF as anticipated. FINRA also argues that certain
provisions of the application are designed to (1) provide FINRA the
information necessary to ensure the ADF can accommodate the volume of
data the member anticipates submitting to the ADF and (2) establish the
basis upon which FINRA will be safeguarded by ensuring that the
potential ADF Market Participant will bear some of the financial
responsibility should FINRA undertake the efforts and incur the costs
necessary to bring the ADF Market Participant onto the ADF, only to
have the ADF Market Participant fail to participate at all or at the
agreed level.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Proposal includes several required terms for the
handling of the ADF Deposit Amount (referred to as ``ADF Deposit
Terms''), including the methods for ADF Market Participants to
recover some or all of the ADF Deposit Amount as a result of meeting
its participation commitments (or due to FINRA's inability to meet
its obligations) and methods for FINRA to receive the funds if
commitments are not met. The proposed rule change retains some
flexibility in the precise terms of any agreements between FINRA and
potential ADF Market Participants to ensure that any unique
circumstances can be addressed by permitting de minimis additions or
qualifications to the ADF Deposit Terms, provided both FINRA and the
member agree to those additions or qualifications. See Notice, 78 FR
at 46655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADF Market Data Rebate

    The Proposal includes a means for ADF Market Participants to earn
back the ADF Deposit Amount (the ``ADF Market Data Rebate'').
Specifically, the Proposal provides that for every $1.00 received by
FINRA from the National Market System (``NMS'') SIP data plans
associated with ADF activity attributable, as determined in FINRA's
sole discretion, to the member's trading activity on the ADF, the
member shall receive $0.50 out of the ADF Escrow Account. Thus, an ADF
Market Participant could recover an amount equal to one-half of the SIP
market data revenue generated by the ADF Market Participant's trading
activity on the ADF. The ADF Market Data Rebate would be paid on a
quarterly basis after FINRA has received its quarterly disbursement
from the NMS SIP data plans.\26\ According to FINRA, this provides for
a reasonable opportunity for FINRA to recover some of its costs of re-
sequencing the MPP rollout by virtue of the SIP market data revenue
split.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Charges or credits as a result of SIP audit recoveries,
which typically are de minimis as compared to the overall revenue
paid, would not be included in the calculation. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Proposal provides that the ADF Market Participant
is only entitled to receive an amount up to 80% of the ADF Deposit
Amount pursuant to this provision and is not entitled to the remaining
20% of the ADF Deposit Amount until the end of the ADF Quoting Term,
assuming its trading activity has earned the requisite market data
revenue from the SIPs. To the extent that the ADF Market Participant
opts to stop participating on the ADF before the end of the ADF Quoting
Term or stop meeting its ADF Quoting Requirement before the end of the
ADF Quoting Term (i.e., chooses to quote or trade through another
trading venue), it would be free to do so but could potentially forfeit
some or all of the remaining ADF Deposit Amount.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. If FINRA does not make the ADF available within
nine months of an ADF Market Participant's first deposit of the ADF
Deposit Amount into the ADF Escrow Account, one-fifth of the ADF
Deposit Amount will be released from such ADF Escrow Account to the
ADF Market Participant. An additional one-fifth of the initial ADF
Deposit Amount will be released to the ADF Market Participant every
month thereafter that FINRA has not made the ADF available, until
all funds have been released from such ADF Escrow Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal also includes certain provisions designed to protect
FINRA if a member requests that the ADF be migrated to MPP on an
accelerated basis or if FINRA undertakes efforts to build out the
system to support the member, and in either instance, the member fails
to participate.\28\ The proposed rule change provides that one-fifth of
the ADF Deposit Amount shall be released to FINRA if, in any calendar
month beginning with the fourth calendar month following certification
of the ADF Market Participant to quote on or report trades to the ADF,
the ADF Market Participant fails to submit 75% of the member's quoting
and trade reporting activity to the ADF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In addition, if a member is sold (other than a sale to an
entity that would otherwise meet the FINRA qualifications as an ADF
Market Participant), goes out of business, otherwise does not meet
its obligations, or fails to complete the process for becoming an
ADF Market Participant, the member will forfeit the ADF Deposit
Amount, or any lesser amount remaining in the ADF Escrow Account,
and all funds will be released from the ADF Escrow Account to FINRA.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change would make clear that a member
would become an ADF Market Participant only after (i) the member
received a notice of approval from FINRA that its application was
accepted, (ii) the member executed the Certification Record, and (iii)
FINRA executed the Participant Agreement.

III. Discussion and Findings

    After carefully considering the Proposal, the comments submitted,
and FINRA's responses to the comments, for the reasons discussed below
the Commission finds that FINRA responded appropriately to the concerns
raised and that the Proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of (1)
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\30\ which requires, in part, that FINRA
rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, (2) Section
15A(b)(5) of the Act,\31\ which requires, among other

things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls, and (3) Section 15A(b)(9) \32\ of the Act, which requires, in
part, that FINRA rules do not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters from the same commenter
in response to the Proposal.\33\ The commenter, NSX, contends that the
Proposal is inconsistent with Sections 15A(b)(5), (6), and (9) of the
Act.\34\ NSX generally argues that FINRA has not demonstrated that: (1)
the proposed ADF Deposit Amount and credit provisions are reasonable or
equitably allocated, and (2) the proposed ADF Deposit Amount, the
accompanying credit provisions, and the proposed 75% quoting
requirement impose an inappropriate burden on competition. The
Commission also received a comment letter from NYSE Euronext (``NYSE'')
that argues that the Proposal read in conjunction with FINRA's existing
ADF fees, is not consistent with Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NSX Letter and NSX Letter II.
    \34\ See NSX Letter at 1.
    \35\ NYSE Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act mandates that ``[t]he rules of the
association provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the association operates or
controls.'' \36\ NSX argues that that FINRA ``fails to meet its burden
of adequately articulating and justifying the reasonableness of the ADF
Participant fees.'' \37\ NSX questions whether it is consistent with
the Act for FINRA to (1) charge the same ADF Deposit Amount regardless
of a potential ADF Participant's use of the ADF and (2) offer the ADF
at a cost which will be spread among all FINRA members and not just ADF
Participants.\38\ NSX argues that charging the same ADF Deposit Amount
for all ADF Market Participants ``appears to discriminate against
smaller ADF Market Participants and may pose an unreasonable barrier of
entry for them. . .'' \39\ NSX also contends that reasonableness of the
ADF Deposit Amount and ADF Market Data Rebate can only be determined
after analyzing total cost, projected volume, source of funds, and
future fees. Accordingly, NSX argues, the Proposal is deficient as it
does not disclose the specific percentage that the Deposit Amount is of
total development costs.\40\ In its second letter, NSX reiterates these
concerns, stating that the proposal fails to disclose the specific
percentage of total development costs that the Proposed Participant Fee
represents and how FINRA intends to cover the remaining development
costs, and noting that the Proposal contains ``little to no information
on the ADF operational costs and how FINRA intends to cover those
associated costs.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
    \37\ NSX Letter at 1.
    \38\ Id. at 3-4.
    \39\ NSX Letter II at 6.
    \40\ See NSX Letter at 2.
    \41\ NSX Letter II at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA contends that it has provided enough information
to demonstrate that the ADF Deposit Amount is reasonable.\42\ In
particular, FINRA included detailed cost estimates regarding the
accelerated ADF migration. In addition, FINRA notes in establishing the
ADF Deposit Amount it considered its ability to recover costs and
whether the ADF Deposit Amount would preclude potential ADF Market
Participants from using the ADF.\43\ FINRA believes that the Deposit
Amounts are reasonable because they represent a portion of the costs
FINRA will incur and are recoverable wholly or in part by the ADF
Market Participant.\44\ Finally, FINRA disputes NSX's argument that it
is required to include a forecast of all future fees as part of its
analysis of the reasonableness of the fees contemplated in the
Proposal.\45\ FINRA also believes the additional information requested
by NSX would be speculative and of limited utility.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See FINRA Response at 2 and FINRA Response II at 4.
    \43\ See FINRA Response at 3-4.
    \44\ FINRA Response II at 5.
    \45\ Id. at 5 and FINRA Letter at 6. NSX also argues that the
Proposal is not consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which
provides that ``the rules of an association are designed . . . to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination ``between customers, issuers, brokers,
or dealers.'' 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5). Specifically, NSX claims that
the Proposal may raise issues with respect to an ADF Participant's
ability to comply with its best execution obligation. See NSX
Letter, at 5. FINRA responds that this concern is misplaced since
the Quoting Requirement relates to posting of quotes and the
reporting of trades, whereas best execution obligation implicates a
broker-dealer's handling of customer orders for execution. See FINRA
Response, at 6 n. 11.
    \46\ See FINRA Response at 5 and FINRA Response II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to NSX's argument that the proposed ADF Deposit Amount
does not take into account the ADF Market Participant's total quotation
or trading volume, FINRA responds the fixed ADF Deposit Amount is not
tied to the amount of usage since costs of on-boarding each participant
are fixed and do not vary by ADF Market Participant.\47\ In addition,
FINRA claims that the ADF Deposit Amount is designed to defray costs
but not cover costs entirely. Imposing all costs only on ADF Market
Participants, FINRA argues, would discourage new ADF Market
Participants from joining the ADF and reduce potential ADF revenue
thereby increasing ADF-related losses.\48\ Further, FINRA notes that,
absent the Proposal, FINRA would incur all of the costs regarding the
migration and operation of the ADF without the potential to offset such
costs.\49\ Finally, FINRA argues that the ADF Deposit Amount reflects
an ``appropriate balance between helping to defray the costs of
migrating and operating the ADF while not making participation in the
ADF cost-prohibitive'' that is reasonable in light of projected $3
million total costs cited in its Proposal and an equitable allocation
among ADF Participants and its member firms.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See FINRA Response at 3 and FINRA Response II at 5.
    \48\ FINRA Response at 3-4.
    \49\ FINRA Response at 3 n. 5 and FINRA Response II at 5.
    \50\ See FINRA Response at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe, as NSX suggests, that FINRA has
presented an insufficient basis to determine the reasonableness of the
ADF Deposit Amount and Market Data Rebate. Neither does the Commission
accept NSX's argument that FINRA is necessarily required to disclose
the total development and operation costs, projected volume, source of
funds used to fund the ADF and any future fees. The Commission,
furthermore, does not agree with NSX's claim that the Proposal
establishes an inequitable allocation of fees among its members.
Rather, the Commission believes that, by requiring individual members
to provide a portion of the specific costs that FINRA would incur to
accommodate a member's request to either accelerate the migration of
the ADF or otherwise use the ADF, the Deposit Amount is a reasonable
and equitable allocation of costs among FINRA's members. In addition,
the ADF Deposit Amount and Market Data Rebate provide a fair and
equitable way for FINRA to recover costs associated with onboarding a
new ADF Participant while allowing an ADF Participant to earn back its
deposit.

    Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act provides that ``[t]he rules of the
association do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this title.'' \51\ NSX
argues that FINRA fails to adequately address whether the Proposal
imposes a burden on competition for other self-regulatory organization
(``SRO''s) such as NSX.\52\ According to NSX, the Proposal is an unfair
subsidy of FINRA's trading facility and that by charging ``below cost
or subsidized rates to ADF Market Participants, FINRA would have an
unfair advantage against other exchanges that are offering competitive
alternatives.''\53\ NSX argues that ADF users should be required to
self-fund the ADF platform.\54\ In addition, NSX claims that the ADF
Deposit Amount and the requirement to send at least 75% of quotes and
trades to FINRA amount to an unprecedented burden on competition
because the ADF Quoting Requirement would make it economically
unfeasible for any other SRO that provides order delivery functionality
to compete with FINRA.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
    \52\ NSX Letter at 5.
    \53\ NSX Letter II at 3.
    \54\ Id. at 3-4.
    \55\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responds that NSX's assertion that FINRA is either
subsidizing the operation of the ADF or operating at a loss and that
this results in an unfair competitive advantage against exchanges
attempting to offer order delivery alternatives to the ADF is
misleading.\56\ FINRA states that the ADF Deposit Amount is not an
unfair subsidy; rather it is designed to recoup expenses it incurs in
connection with the addition of new ADF Market Participants and the ADF
Migration.\57\ FINRA notes that the Proposal is ``intended to avoid the
need for FINRA to subsidize all of the costs associated with'' the
ADF.\58\ Moreover, FINRA notes that the ADF Quoting Requirement is not
an unnecessary or appropriate burden on competition because it is not a
requirement to use the ADF, and is only a means to earn back the ADF
Deposit Amount.\59\ According to FINRA, therefore, meeting the ADF
Quoting Requirement is voluntary and at the discretion of an ADF Market
Participant.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ FINRA Response II at 2-3.
    \57\ See FINRA Response at 6 and FINRA Response II at 3.
    \58\ FINRA Response II at 3.
    \59\ FINRA Response at 6.
    \60\ Id. at 6-7 and FINRA Response II at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that the Proposal constitutes an
unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition. In addition, the
Commission does not agree with NSX's argument that the Quoting
Requirement would make it economically unfeasible for any other SRO
that provides order delivery functionality to compete. To the extent
that ECNs choose to use the ADF Platform because the ADF offers better
facilities and a more favorable price structure, such a result is not
an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
    In its comment letter, NYSE suggests that the combination of
FINRA's existing ADF fee schedule contained in Rule 7510--in which the
Quotation Update Charge to be paid by an ADF Market Participant varies
commensurate with the number of trades reported through the ADF by that
ADF Market Participant--and the fees contained in the Proposal is
inconsistent with Section 15A(b)(9) because they make it economically
prohibitive for an ADF Participant to quote on the ADF but trade report
elsewhere.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ NYSE Letter at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responds by reiterating that the proposed ADF Deposit Amount
is designed to reasonably and equitably allow FINRA to recoup costs
related to the ADF migration and the addition of a new ADF Market
Participant that the provision by which an ADF Market Participant may
earn back some or all of its ADF Deposit Amount is designed to provide
an incentive for an ADF Market Participant to remain active on the ADF
and to utilize the ADF capacity that FINRA has incurred costs to
provide.\62\ FINRA states that this, in turn, will reduce the
likelihood that FINRA will incur unnecessary expenditures in connection
with the ADF migration, and will increase the probability of FINRA
recouping a reasonable amount of the costs involved with launching a
new ADF Market Participant from that ADF Market Participant rather than
recover those costs from fees paid by all FINRA members.\63\ FINRA
believes the only new issue raised by NYSE relates to FINRA's existing
quotation fee structure in Rule 7510(b) rather than the Proposal
itself.\64\ As an initial matter, FINRA believes that such comments are
not appropriately directed to this filing, as Rule 7510 has been
previously filed and made effective under the Act.\65\ FINRA further
argues that both the proposed and existing fee structure fairly impose
costs on those members whose quotation and trading activity creates
system capacity demands, as well as provide incentives to quote and
trade report to the ADF, which also generates revenue for FINRA to
support the costs of operating the ADF.\66\ FINRA believes that an ADF
Market Participant currently would consider both its quoting and
trading activity when determining its desired level of activity on the
ADF, and the Proposal, pursuant to which an ADF Market Participant
would ascertain its ability to earn back some or all of its ADF Deposit
Amount, is consistent with this analysis.\67\ The Commission believes
that FINRA has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the Proposal is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ FINRA Response III at 3.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\68\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-031), is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01967 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38240-38243]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16228]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64732; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Include Text in
Its Options Rules Governing the Use of Its Affiliate Broker-Dealer,
Archipelago Securities LLC for Outbound Routing of Option Orders, and
To Adopt Text in Its Options Rules To Permit the Exchange To Receive
Inbound Routes of Option Orders From Arca Securities, Acting as the
Outbound Router for NYSE Arca, Inc.

 June 23, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on June 16, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by NYSE Amex. 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 (1) To include text in its options rules
governing the use of its affiliate broker-dealer, Archipelago
Securities LLC (``Arca Securities''), for outbound routing of option
orders, and (2) to adopt text in its options rules to permit the
Exchange to receive inbound routes of option orders from Arca
Securities, acting as the outbound router for NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's principal office, at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to include text in its options rules
governing the use of Arca Securities for outbound routing of option
orders, and to adopt text in its options rules to permit the Exchange
to receive inbound routes of option orders from Arca Securities when it
is acting as the outbound router for NYSE Arca.\3\ The Exchange notes
that it currently uses third-party broker-dealers to route orders to
other options exchanges and to have orders routed to it from other
options exchanges,

including NYSE Arca. In an effort to provide more clarity regarding the
functions of Arca Securities and to provide NYSE Amex with the
flexibility to use Arca Securities as an outbound and inbound routing
broker in the future, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange's affiliate, NYSE Arca, is proposing a
substantially similar rule change. See SR-NYSEArca-2011-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background--Authority To Use Arca Securities as Routing Broker
    NYSE Amex currently has the authority to use Arca Securities as an
outbound router to send option orders to an away market center for
execution whenever such routing is required by Exchange Rules and
Federal securities laws. As noted above, however, the Exchange does not
currently use Arca Securities for this function. The rules providing
for this authority are found in the Exchange's equities rules. In
particular, Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities defines the term ``Routing
Broker,'' and Rule 17(c)--NYSE Amex Equities sets forth the conditions
for the operation of a Routing Broker.\4\ These rules do not currently
provide NYSE Amex with the authority to have inbound option orders
routed to it by Arca Securities on behalf of NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63). Rules 13 and
17--NYSE Amex Equities permit not only Arca Securities but also
unaffiliated third-party broker-dealers to perform the outbound
routing function, which serves as a risk management function in the
event of a system malfunction or failure. As such, Rule 17--NYSE
Amex Equities currently refers generically to ``Routing Broker(s),''
rather than just Arca Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to include text in its options rules
governing the use of Arca Securities for outbound routing of option
orders.\5\ This rule text is substantially the same as the rule text in
Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities and Rule 17(c)--NYSE Amex Equities. In
particular, the Exchange proposes to replace the definition of
``Routing Broker'' found in NYSE Amex Rule 900.2NY(69) with the
definition of that term found in Rule 13--NYSE Amex Equities. This
change is designed to provide consistency with respect to rules related
to the routing function on the Exchange for equity and option orders.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt in NYSE Amex Rule 993NY(a)
the text from Rule 17(c)--NYSE Amex Equities. This change would set
forth in the options rules the conditions for using Arca Securities as
the outbound routing broker for option orders for the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that the outbound routing function of
Arca Securities is only available with respect to orders of ATP
Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has previously represented that if Arca
Securities were to route option orders directly from the Exchange to an
affiliated market that it would do so only after the affiliated market
had rules approved that authorize it to receive such routed option
orders from its broker-dealer affiliate.\6\ The Exchange further
recognizes that the same would be true in order for the Exchange to
receive routes of option orders from Arca Securities on behalf of the
Exchange's affiliate NYSE Arca. In order to address concern that the
Commission has previously expressed regarding the potential for
conflicts of interest in instances where a member firm is affiliated
with an exchange to which it is routing orders, the Exchange hereby
proposes to accept inbound option orders that its affiliate, Arca
Securities, routes in its capacity as a facility of NYSE Arca, subject
to the following limitations and conditions and as reflected in
proposed Rule 993NY(b). \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59473 (February 27,
2009), 74 FR 9853 (March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-18), at note 8.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that the limitations and conditions
proposed herein would be substantially the same as those applicable
to the Exchange's current pilot program to accept routes of inbound
equity orders by Arca Securities, on behalf of the Exchange's
affiliates NYSE Arca and New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'').
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (September 29, 2008),
73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (October 1, 2008), 73 FR 58995
(October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63). The Exchange notes that it has
proposed specific rule text for this inbound equity routing
functionality, the terms of which are currently generally set forth
in the Commission's approval orders, rather than rule text, and have
already been approved in substance by the Commission for the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, the Exchange will (1) Maintain an agreement
pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Exchange Act with a non-affiliated
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') (presently the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')) to relieve the Exchange of
regulatory responsibilities for Arca Securities with respect to rules
that are common rules between the Exchange and the non-affiliated SRO,
and (2) maintain a regulatory services agreement with a non-affiliated
SRO (presently FINRA) to perform regulatory responsibilities for Arca
Securities for unique Exchange rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that FINRA reviews both inbound and
outbound routing via Arca Securities pursuant to an existing 17d-2
agreement and an existing regulatory services agreement. The
Exchange will review the terms of the regulatory services agreement
in connection with this proposed rule change, and will amend it to
reflect the specific terms of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, the regulatory services agreement discussed above
will require the Exchange to provide the non-affiliated SRO with
information, in an easily accessible manner, regarding all exception
reports, alerts, complaints, trading errors, cancellations,
investigations, and enforcement matters (collectively ``Exceptions'')
in which Arca Securities is identified as a participant that has
potentially violated Exchange or SEC Rules and of which the Exchange
becomes aware, and shall require that the non-affiliated SRO provide a
report, at least quarterly, to the Exchange quantifying all Exceptions
in which Arca Securities is identified as a participant that has
potentially violated Exchange or SEC Rules.
     Third, the Exchange, on behalf of the holding company
owning both the Exchange and Arca Securities, will establish and
maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to
prevent Arca Securities from receiving any benefit, taking any action
or engaging in any activity based on non-public information regarding
planned changes to Exchange systems, obtained as a result of its
affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated ATP Holders in connection with the
provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange.
     Fourth, the Exchange may furnish to Arca Securities the
same information on the same terms that the Exchange makes available in
the normal course of business to any other ATP Holder.
     Fifth, the inbound routing functionality would operate
pursuant to a pilot program that would end on September 30, 2011.
    The proposed text within Rule 993NY(b) corresponding to these
limitations and conditions would be substantially the same as the
language set forth in the Commission orders applicable to the Exchange,
as described above, and virtually identical to the inbound router rule
text already implemented for another exchange.\9\ The Exchange proposes
that the operation of the inbound routing function would cover all
types of option orders approved for use on NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BATS Rule 2.12. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 62901 (September 13, 2010), 75 FR 57097 (September 17, 2010)
(SR-BATS-2010-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \10\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\11\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change, which in part would add specific rule text
for routing functionality that has already been approved in substance
by the Commission for the Exchange, would enhance the clarity and
transparency surrounding such functionality, including the
responsibilities and obligations attendant therewith, while also
reflecting the Exchange's ongoing efforts to effectively address the
concerns previously identified by the Commission regarding the
potential for informational advantages favoring Arca Securities vis-
[agrave]-vis other non-affiliated Exchange ATP Holders. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change would support the
principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \12\ in that it seeks to
assure economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to permit the
Exchange to receive inbound routes of option orders from Arca
Securities, acting as the outbound router for NYSE Arca, is consistent
with previous Commission orders authorizing the Exchange to receive
inbound routes of equity orders from Arca Securities on behalf of the
Exchange's affiliate exchanges, NYSE and NYSE Arca. Furthermore, by
including rule text governing both outbound and inbound routing in
proposed Rule 993NY, the Exchange would establish a single, central
location in its Rules describing all option order routing broker
functions. Additionally, the proposed amendments to align the
definition of Routing Broker in the Exchange's equity and option rules
would result in greater consistency in defined terms on the Exchange.

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\15\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\16\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange believes that
waiver of the 30-day operative delay would provide more clarity and
transparency in its rule text concerning all of the functions that Arca
Securities performs on behalf of the Exchange without undue delay. In
addition, the Exchange notes that the proposal is consistent with the
rules of another national securities exchange. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing
with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-40. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-

NYSEAmex-2011-40 and should be submitted on or before July 20, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16228 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56555-56556]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19768]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0642; FRL-9950-90-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Minor New Source Review Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia on July 15, 2013 pertaining to preconstruction
permitting requirements under Virginia's minor New Source Review (NSR)
program. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. Additionally, a more detailed description of the state submittal
and EPA's evaluation is included in a technical support document (TSD)
prepared in support of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is
available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document or is also available electronically
within the Docket for this rulemaking action at www.regulations.gov. If
no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by September 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2015-0642 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from

Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register publication.

    Dated: August 9, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-19768 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: Lynn Dail Sent: 06/ 17/ 03 08: 29 AM To: Anne Pope/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Maria Pimentel/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Re: Briefing for Magnetic Tape Residual Risk: Test Results ( Document link: Anne Pope)

Thanks Anne for reviewing the presentation. I have some answers to your questions below:

In our effort to gather data, there were four facilities on the NEI list we originally received from ERG Sony ( Carrollton, GA), Digital Audio Disc ( Terre Haute, IN), Sonopress ( Weaverville, NC), and Wea Manufacturing. Based on information we have received from States, Sony Carrollton has shut down, and the other three facilities do not manufacture magnetic tape.

We went to the TRI in an attempt to identify more facilities. We can compare what we have now with your draft 1999 NEI and later with the final 1999 NEI when it is released in July 2003. Could you provide me with the latest copy of the 1999 NEI or do I just go to the website?

Regarding the presence of 1,1,2 trichloroethane and trichloroethylene in the NEI database for Imation:

( 1) No 1,1,2 trichloroethane emissions were reported in the TRI after 1997 for Imation. For the years after 1997, the TRI listed 1,1,2 trichloroethane as " NR," which signifies that nothing was reported forthis facility.

( 2) No trichloroethylene emissions were reported in the TRI for any year for Imation. The pollutant was not even listed in the TRI as ever having been emitted from this facility.

( 3) Only a portion of the Imation facility is dedicated to magnetic tape manufacturing. Based on information from Imation, the total VOC associated with magnetic tape operations is less than 9 percent. So even if the se two HAP are emitted from Imation, they may not be from the magnetic tape manufacturing operation at the facility.

( 4) The Magnetic Tape BID does not include these two HAP in the list of HAP used in the magnetic tape manufacturing industry. ( It does mention that 1,1,1 trichloroethane is used to a lesser extent.)

( 5) The TRI results for the three facilities ( Quantegy, JVC, and Sony Dothan) that manufacture only magnetic tape do not show any 1,1,2 trichloroethane or trichloroethylene listed. ( The TRI results for Sony Dothan list 1,1,1 trichloroethane, but indicate it has not been reported since 1992.)

Let me know if you have any other questions and if you would like us to contact Anne Pope directly about getting a copy of the 1999 NEI.

Regarding the presence of 1,1,2 trichloroethane and trichloroethylene in the NEI database for Imation: ( 1) No 1,1,2 trichloroethane emissions were reported in the TRI after 1997 for Imation. For the years after 1997, the TRI listed 1,1,2 trichloroethane as " NR," which signifies that nothing was reported for this facility.

( 2) No trichloroethylene emissions were reported in the TRI for any year for Imation. The pollutant was not even listed in the TRI as ever having been emitted from this facility.

( 3) Only a portion of the Imation facility is dedicated to magnetic tape manufacturing. Based on information from Imation, the total VOC associated with magnetic tape operations is less than 9 percent. So even if the se two HAP are emitted from Imation, they may not be from the magnetic tape manufacturing operation at the facility.

( 4) The Magnetic Tape BID does not include these two HAP in the list of HAP used in the magnetic tape manufacturing industry. ( It does mention that 1,1,1 trichloroethane is used to a lesser extent.)

( 5) The TRI results for the three facilities ( Quantegy, JVC, and Sony Dothan) that manufacture only magnetic tape do not show any 1,1,2 trichloroethane or trichloroethylene listed. ( The TRI results for Sony Dothan list 1,1,1 trichloroethane, but indicate it has not been reported since 1992.)

H. Lynn Dail, Environmental Scientist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS/ ESD/ CCPG ( C539 03) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919 541 2363 FAX: 919 541 5689 e mail: dail. lynn@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54951-54952]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0071]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated June 15, 2013, Symans Enterprise has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR Part 215. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0071.
    Specifically, Symans Enterprise seeks an exemption from the
requirements for stenciling of restricted cars for two cars: (1) Car
Number 604, a Pennsylvania Railroad open car, and (2) Car Number 514, a
1914 Lehigh New England Bobber caboose. Title 49 CFR 215.303 requires
that cars deemed restricted by 49 CFR 215.203(a) shall be stenciled in
a certain way. Symans Enterprise requests that it be permitted to leave
the cars with their historical stenciling, and that it be exempted from
stenciling these two cars with the large ``R'' usually required on
restricted cars, as it would detract from the historical image.
    Symans Enterprise states that the subject freight cars were
converted to carry passengers. The subject cars and their type,
capacities, reporting marks, and other features are listed in an
enclosure with the petition letter. Also included in the enclosure are
the design, type, components, or other items that cause each car to be
restricted.
    Symans Enterprise further states that the subject cars will be
trucked by the company to the various locations for service, and the
cars will be used for tourist attractions and historical purposes and
will not be interchanged in regular freight operations. The cars will
be serviced, inspected, and maintained in compliance with all
applicable regulations with the exception of the conditions that
require special approvals.
    In addition, Symans Enterprise has requested a Special Approval for
these cars to continue in service in accordance with 49 CFR 205.203(c).
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 21, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-21695 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60236-60238]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28853; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-218-AD;
Amendment 39-15241; AD 2007-22-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    At some locations, the new calculated fatigue life [for the wing
to center box assembly] falls below the aircraft Design Service
Goal.
    The aim of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is * * * to ensure
detection of cracks on the panels and stiffeners at rib No. 1. This
situation, if left uncorrected, could affect the structural
integrity of the area.

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

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 28, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 28,
2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Items Document
AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006, as of October 31,
2007 (72 FR 54536, September 26, 2007).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
 or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; 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 3, 2007 (72
FR 43199). A correction of that NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45866). That NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    During installation of the wing to the centre box junction on
the Final Assembly Line, some ``taperlocks'' fasteners were found
non compliant with the specification.
    Fatigue tests on samples and calculation performed on non-
conform fasteners demonstrated that this defect could lead to
decrease the fatigue life of the wing to centre wing box assembly.
    At some locations, the new calculated fatigue life falls below
the aircraft Design Service Goal.
    The aim of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to mandate
repetitive inspections to ensure detection of cracks on the panels
and stiffeners at rib No. 1. This situation, if left uncorrected,
could affect the structural integrity of the area.

The corrective action includes contacting Airbus for repair
instructions in the event of crack finding. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Clarification of Compliance Times

    We added ``total'' to the flight hour compliance times in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A), (f)(2)(i)(A), and (f)(3)(i)(A) of the AD. The
flight cycle compliance times already specify total flight cycles.

Change of Service Bulletin Appendix Reference

    We changed ``including'' to ``excluding'' when referring to
Appendix 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6154, dated June 20,
2006, in paragraph (h) and in the subparagraphs of paragraph (f) of the
AD. Appendix 01 is a reporting form, and this AD does not require
reporting.

Conclusion

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 79 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $44,240, or $6,320 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2007-22-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-15241. Docket No. FAA-2007-28853;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-218-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
28, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes,
manufacturing serial numbers (MSN) 0815 up to MSN 0821 inclusive,
certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During installation of the wing to the centre box junction on
the Final Assembly Line, some ``taperlocks'' fasteners were found
non compliant with the specification.
    Fatigue tests on samples and calculation performed on non-
conform fasteners demonstrated that this defect could lead to
decrease the fatigue life of the wing to centre wing box assembly.
    At some locations, the new calculated fatigue life falls below
the aircraft Design Service Goal.
    The aim of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to mandate
repetitive inspections to ensure detection of cracks on the panels
and stiffeners at rib No. 1. This situation, if left uncorrected,
could affect the structural integrity of the area.

The corrective action includes contacting Airbus for repair
instructions in the event of crack finding.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Action No. 1, for the center wing box:
    (i) At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) and
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this AD: Do an external ultrasonic inspection for
cracking of the taperlocks fasteners of the center wing box, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
If any crack is detected: Before further flight, contact Airbus for
repair instructions, and repair.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 19,800 total flight cycles or
41,200 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,300 flight cycles or 6,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
    (iii) The repetitive interval specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)
of this AD is valid until the threshold of Airbus A300-600
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) Task 571006-02-1 is reached.
After reaching this threshold, the ultrasonic inspection is to be
done according to Task 571006-02-1, ``Special detailed inspection
(Ultrasonic) of wing junction at rib 1 horizontal flange of lower T
section, between FR40 and FR47 inboard side, LH/RH,'' of Airbus
A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/
06, Issue 11, dated April 2006.
    (2) Action No. 2, for the outer wing box:
    (i) At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and
(f)(2)(i)(B) of this AD: Do an external ultrasonic inspection for
cracking of the taperlocks fasteners of the outer wing box, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
If any crack is detected: Before further flight, contact Airbus for
repair instructions, and repair.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 15,200 total flight cycles or
31,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,700 flight cycles or 7,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
    (iii) The repetitive interval specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)
of this AD is valid until reaching the threshold of Airbus A300-600
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) Task 571022-01-2, ``Special
detailed inspection (Ultrasonic) of wing-fuselage lower skin splice
at rib 1 (wing side).'' After reaching this threshold, the
ultrasonic inspection is to be done according to Task 571022-01-2 of
Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/
95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006.
    (3) Action No. 3, for the outer wing box:
    (i) At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) and
(f)(3)(i)(B) of this AD: Do an internal x-ray inspection for
cracking of the taperlocks fasteners of the outer wing box, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
If any crack is detected: Before further flight, contact Airbus for
repair instructions, and repair.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 20,900 total flight cycles or
43,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
1,800 flight cycles or 3,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006.
    (iii) The repetitive interval specified in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)
of this AD is valid until reaching the threshold of Airbus A300-600
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) Task 571022-02-2, ``Special
detailed inspection (XRAY) of wing-fuselage lower skin splice at rib
1 (wing side).'' After reaching this threshold, the x-ray inspection
is to be done according to Task 571022-02-2 of Airbus A300-600
Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue
11, dated April 2006.

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,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal 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, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0257, dated
August 24, 2006; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6154, excluding
Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006; and Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness
Limitations Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated
April 2006; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of
this AD 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 Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6154,
excluding Appendix 01, dated June 20, 2006, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness
Limitations Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated
April 2006, on October 31, 2007 (72 FR 54536, September 26, 2007).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
    (4) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

              Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Service information         Revision level             Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Service Bulletin A300- Original............  June 20, 2006.
 53-6154, excluding Appendix
 01.
Airbus A300-600               Issue 11............  April 2006.
 Airworthiness Limitations
 Items Document AI/SE-M2/
 95A.0502/06.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20815 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P