[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68770-68774]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22034]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98658; File No. SR-PEARL-2023-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Suspension of and
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Modify
Certain Connectivity and Port Fees

September 29, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On August 8, 2023, MIAX PEARL LLC (``MIAX Pearl Options'' 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 (File No. SR-PEARL-2023-35) to amend certain
connectivity and port fees. The proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 25, 2023.\4\ Pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\5\ the Commission is hereby: (1)
temporarily suspending the proposed rule change; and (2) instituting
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98180 (August 21,
2023), 88 FR 58404 (SR-PEARL-2023-35) (``Notice''). Comment on the
proposed rule change can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-pearl-2023-35/srpearl202335.htm.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As described in more detail in the Notice, the Exchange proposes
to: (1) increase fees for a 10 gigabit (``Gb'') ultra-low latency
(``ULL'') fiber connection for Members \6\ and non-Members from $10,000
to $13,500 per month; \7\ (2) remove provisions in the Exchange's Fee
Schedule that provide for a shared 10Gb ULL network with the Exchange's
affiliate Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''); \8\
and (3) amend the calculation method and increase the amount of fees
for MIAX Express Network Full Service \9\ (``MEO'') Ports.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58408.
    \8\ On January 23, 2023, the Exchange bifurcated the Exchange
and MIAX's 10Gb ULL network and stated that this bifurcation was due
to ever-increasing capacity constraints and anticipated access needs
for Members and market participants. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 96545 (December 20, 2022), 87 FR 79393 (December 27,
2022) (SR-MIAX-2022-48); and 96553 (December 20, 2022), 87 FR 79379
(December 27, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-60). The instant filing would
amend provisions in the Fee Schedule to reflect the bifurcation of
the 10Gb ULL network and specify that only the 1Gb network provides
access to both the Exchange and MIAX. See Notice, supra note 4, at
58408.
    \9\ The term ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order
interface for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the
MIAX Pearl System. See the Definitions Section of the Exchange Fee
Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58409-10. The Exchange
initially filed the proposed fee change on December 30, 2022, with
an effective date of January 1, 2023. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 96632 (January 10, 2023), 88 FR 2707 (January 17, 2023)
(SR-PEARL-2022-62). That filing was withdrawn by the Exchange and
the Exchange filed a new proposed fee change with additional
justification (SR-PEARL-2023-05) on February 23, 2023. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97082 (March 8, 2023), 88 FR
15825 (March 14, 2023). The Exchange subsequently withdrew that
filing and replaced it with SR-PEARL-2023-19 on April 20, 2023. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97420 (May 2, 2023), 88 FR 29701
(May 8, 2023). The Exchange subsequently withdrew that filing and
replaced it with SR-PEARL-2023-27 on June 16, 2023. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 97815 (June 27, 2023), 88 FR 42759 (July 3,
2023). The Exchange subsequently withdrew that filing and replaced
it with the instant filing to provide additional information and a
revised justification for the proposal, which is discussed herein.
See Notice, supra note 4, at 58405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers two types of Full Service MEO Ports--
Bulk \11\ and Single \12\--and, for one monthly price, a Member may be
allocated two Full-Service MEO Ports of either type per Matching
Engine.\13\ The Exchange now proposes to modify both the calculation
method and amount of fees for each type of Full Service MEO Port.\14\
Notwithstanding these changes to the calculation method and amount of
fees, all Members will continue to be entitled to two Full Service MEO
Ports (Bulk or Single) for each Matching Engine for the applicable
fee.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary bulk order entry.
See the Definitions Section of the Exchange Fee Schedule.
    \12\ Full Service MEO Port (Single) means an MEO port that
supports all MEO input message types and binary order entry on a
single order-by-order basis, but not bulk orders. See the
Definitions Section of the Exchange Fee Schedule.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58409. A ``Matching Engine''
is a part of the Exchange's electronic system that processes options
orders and trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. See the Definitions
Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id. at 58409, 58411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk), prior to the
proposed fee change, all Members were charged a monthly fee pursuant to
a volume tier-based fee structure with fees ranging from $3,000 to
$5,000.\16\ The Exchange now proposes to amend the calculation and
amount of Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for all Members, with
different fee structures depending on whether the Member is a Market
Maker \17\ or an Electronic Exchange Member (``EEM'').\18\ The Exchange
proposes to charge all EEMs that utilize MIAX Pearl Full Service MEO
Ports (Bulk) a flat monthly fee of $7,500.\19\ For Market Makers, the
Exchange proposes

that the amount of the monthly Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) fee would
be based on the lesser of either the per class traded or percentage of
total national average daily volume (``ADV'') measurement based on
classes traded by volume.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 58409.
    \17\ The term ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with
the Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of Exchange Rules. See the
Definitions Section of the Exchange Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule
100.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58409. The term ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the holder of a Trading Permit
who is a Member representing as agent Public Customer Orders or Non-
Customer Orders on the Exchange and those non-Market Maker Members
conducting proprietary trading. Electronic Exchange Members are
deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions
Section of the Exchange Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58409.
    \20\ The amount of monthly Market Maker Full Service MEO Port
(Bulk) fee would be based upon the number of classes in which the
Market Maker was registered to quote on any given day within the
calendar month, or upon the class volume percentages. The Exchange
states that this change in how Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) will be
calculated is identical to how the Exchange assesses Market Makers
Trading Permit fees. See Notice, supra note 4, at 58409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following Full
Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for Market Makers: (i) $5,000 for Market
Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option
classes by national ADV; (ii) $7,500 for Market Maker registrations in
up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV; (iii)
$10,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or
up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and (iv) $12,000 for Market Maker
registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes
by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl.\21\ In addition,
the Exchange proposes to adopt an alternative lower Full Service MEO
Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers who fall within the second, third,
and fourth levels of the proposed Market Maker Full Service MEO Port
(Bulk) fee table--i.e., (i) Market Maker registrations in up to 40
option classes or up to 35% of option classes by volume; (ii) Market
Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option
classes by volume; and (iii) Market Maker registrations in over 100
option classes or over 50% of option classes by volume up to all option
classes listed on MIAX Pearl Options.\22\ For these Market Makers, if
the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant
month is less than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV \23\ for MIAX Pearl-
listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $6,000
instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 58409-10. For additional information on how
these fees will be calculated please see the Notice.
    \22\ See id. at 58410.
    \23\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX Pearl for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period of time in which the Exchange experiences
an Exchange System Disruption (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine). See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \24\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Full Service MEO Ports (Single), prior to the
proposed fee change, all Members were charged a monthly fee pursuant to
a volume tier-based fee structure with fees ranging from $2,000 to
$3,750.\25\ The Exchange now proposes to charge all Members that
utilize Full Service MEO Ports (Single) a flat monthly fee of
$4,000.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id. at 58411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\27\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\28\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. The Commission believes a temporary suspension of the proposed
rule change is necessary and appropriate to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the
rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposal, the Exchange states its belief that the
proposed fees overall are reasonable because they promote parity among
exchange pricing for access, which promotes competition, while allowing
the Exchange to recover its costs to provide dedicated access via 10Gb
ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports.\29\ The Exchange further
states that the proposed fees are fair and reasonable because they will
not result in pricing that deviates from that of other exchanges or a
``supra-competitive profit,'' when comparing the total expense of the
Exchange associated with providing 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full
Service MEO Port services versus the total projected revenue of the
Exchange associated with these services.\30\ According to the Exchange,
employing a methodology that is the ``result of an extensive review and
analysis,'' it estimates the total projected annual cost of providing
10Gb ULL connectivity to be $11,567,509 and for providing Full Service
MEO Ports to be $1,644,132.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58412.
    \30\ See id. at 58425.
    \31\ See id. at 58417, 58418. The Exchange states that its cost
analysis is based on the Exchange's 2023 fiscal year of operations
and projections. See id. at 58425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To arrive at these figures, the Exchange states that it undertook
an extensive cost analysis to analyze every expense in the Exchange's
general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense related
to the provision of connectivity and port services, and, if such
expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense
supported the provision of connectivity and port services.\32\ The
Exchange states that it determined the total cost for the Exchange and
its affiliated markets for each cost driver \33\ through a company-wide
process that included discussions with senior management, Exchange
department heads, and the Finance Team.\34\ The Exchange further states
that it determined what portion of the cost allocated to the Exchange
pursuant to this methodology is to be allocated to each core service,
including the appropriate allocation to connectivity and ports.\35\ The
Exchange states that through this allocation methodology, the Exchange
``applied an allocation of each cost driver to each core service'' and
``[e]ach of the [resulting] cost allocations is unique to the Exchange
and represents a percentage of overall cost that was allocation to the
Exchange pursuant to the initial allocation.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 58418.
    \33\ The Exchange defines ``cost drivers'' within the filing as
the costs necessary to deliver each of the core services, including
infrastructure, software, human resources (i.e., personnel), and
certain general and administrative expenses. See Notice, supra note
4, at 58417.
    \34\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58417. The Exchange states
that because the Exchange's parent company currently owns and
operates four separate and distinct marketplaces, the Exchange's
parent company determines an accurate cost for each marketplace,
which results in different allocations and amounts across exchanges
for the same cost drivers. See id. at 58418. According to the
Exchange, its allocation methodology ensures that no cost would be
allocated twice or double-counted between the Exchange and its
affiliated markets. See id.
    \35\ See id. The Exchange describes ``core services'' as
services provided by the Exchange, including transaction execution,
market data, membership services, physical connectivity, and port
access (which provides order entry, cancellation and modification
functionality, risk functionality, the ability to receive drop
copies, and other functionality). See id. at 58417.
    \36\ Id. at 58418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the $11,567,509 aggregate annual costs for
providing physical dedicated 10Gb ULL connectivity via an unshared
network is the sum of the following individual line-item costs: (1)
Human Resources at $3,675,098; (2) Connectivity (external fees,
cabling, switches, etc.) at $70,163; (3) internet Services and External
Market Data at $322,388; (4) Data Center

at $739,983; (5) Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses at
$959,157; (6) Depreciation at $1,885,969; and (7) Allocated Shared
Expenses at $3,914,751.\37\ The Exchange represents that it estimates
that the proposed fees will result in an annual revenue of
approximately $17,496,000, which is a potential profit margin of 34%
over the cost of providing 10Gb ULL connectivity services.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See id. at 58419.
    \38\ See id. at 58425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the $1,644,132 aggregate annual costs for
offering Full Service MEO Ports is the sum of the following individual
line-item costs: (1) Human Resources at $1,159,831; (2) Connectivity
(external fees, cabling, switches, etc.) at $1,589; (3) internet
Services and External Market Data at $6,033; (4) Data Center at
$41,881; (5) Hardware and Software Maintenance and Licenses at $22,438;
(6) Depreciation at $127,986; and (7) Allocated Shared Expenses at
$284,374.\39\ The Exchange represents that it estimates that the
proposed fees will result in an annual revenue of approximately
$1,644,000, which would result in a small negative profit margin after
the cost of providing Full Service MEO Port services.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 58422.
    \40\ See id. at 58425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states its belief that the proposed fees are
reasonable because they allow the Exchange to ``recoup the Exchange's
costs of providing dedicated 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO
Ports'' and that the cost analysis and related projections demonstrate
that the Exchange is not earning ``supra-competitive profits.'' \41\ In
addition, the Exchange states that the proposed fees are comparable to
or lower than the fees charged by competing options exchanges for
similar products.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 58426.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further support of the proposal, the Exchange states its belief
that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory, because they are designed to align fees with
services provided and will apply equally to all subscribers.\43\
Moreover, the Exchange asserts that the proposed fees are equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity and port
alternatives, as the ``users of 10Gb ULL connections consume
substantially more bandwidth and network resources than the users of
1Gb ULL connection.'' \44\ The Exchange also states that with respect
to Full Service MEO Ports, Members that are frequently in the highest
tier for Full Service MEO Ports consume the most bandwidth and
resources of the network.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id. at 58427.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange asserts that the proposed fees would not
cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on inter-market
competition because if the fee is set too high it would make it easier
for other exchanges to compete with the Exchange, and only if the
proposed fees were a ``substantial fee decrease could this be
considered a form of predatory pricing.'' \46\ Furthermore, the
Exchange asserts that the proposed fee change for 10Gb ULL connectivity
is a ``technology driven change designed to meet customer needs'' and
that separating the 10Gb ULL network from MIAX enables the Exchange to
``better compete with other exchanges'' by continuing to provide
adequate connectivity to current and new Members, which ``may increase
[its] ability to compete for order flow and deepen its liquidity pool,
improving the overall quality of its market.'' \47\ The Exchange also
asserts that the proposed rule change would not cause any unnecessary
or inappropriate burden on intra-market competition because the
proposed fees will allow the Exchange to recoup some of its costs in
providing 10Gb ULL connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports at below
market rates since the Exchange launched operations.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at 58428.
    \47\ Id. at 58428-29.
    \48\ See id. at 58428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Commission has received one comment letter on the
revised justifications for the proposed increase in fees for 10Gb ULL
connectivity and Full Service MEO Ports.\49\ This commenter states that
the revisions reflected in the Exchange's instant proposal as compared
to its earlier filings ``do[ ] not fundamentally redress the valid
critiques that SIG raised in its prior letters objecting to the subject
fee increases.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Letter from Gerald D. O'Connell, Executive Director,
Susquehanna International Group, LLP, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 18, 2023 (``SIG Letter'').
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\51\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \52\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \53\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \54\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase
fees for 10Gb ULL connectivity (to be provided via an unshared network)
and modify the pricing structure for Full Service MEO Ports is
consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national
securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will
consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under
the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an
exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities;
not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also

hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C) \58\ and
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \59\ to determine whether the Exchange's
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\60\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. See id. The
time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60
days if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and
publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the exchange consents to
the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers;'' \62\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various
arguments in support of its proposal. The Commission believes that
there are questions as to whether the Exchange has provided sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed fees are consistent with
the Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \64\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\65\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \65\ See id.
    \66\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 25, 2023.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November 8, 2023. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-PEARL-2023-35 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-PEARL-2023-35. 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 website (https://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 website 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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-PEARL-2023-35 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by November 8, 2023.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\69\ that File No. SR-PEARL-2023-35, be and hereby is, temporarily
suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22034 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24351-24353]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0383; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-093-AD;
Amendment 39-16675; AD 2011-09-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

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:

    Further to accomplishment of A340 ALI tasks 545104, which
require a rototest inspection as per Non Destructive Testing Manual
(NTM) 54-51-04 of engine pylon pyramid attachment areas at aft end
of lower arms between Rib 1 and Rib 2 (2 fastener locations/pylon),
four findings have been reported and repaired.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is cracking, which might impact the structural
integrity of the airplane. This AD requires actions that are intended
to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 17, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 17, 2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone: 425-
227-1138; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0140, dated July 28, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Further to accomplishment of A340 ALI tasks 545104, which
require a rototest inspection as per Non Destructive Testing Manual
(NTM) 54-51-04 of engine pylon pyramid attachment areas at aft end
of lower arms between Rib 1 and Rib 2 (2 fastener locations/pylon),
four findings have been reported and repaired.
    Further investigations made on performances of High Frequency
Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection techniques in steel led to the
conclusion that existing NTM procedure 54-51-04 by rototest is not
reliable because this method is not adapted to the ferromagnetic
materials and therefore findings reported up to now using this
procedure can be considered as uncertain.
    Therefore, a new inspection procedure using Ultra Sonic (US)
testing without fastener removal has been developed.
    In order to comply with certification requirements, this
Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires performing the new
[repetitive] US inspection [for cracking] on all A340-200/-300 pre-
modification 49203 (reinforcements of pylon primary structure for
enhanced A340).

The unsafe condition is cracking, which might impact the structural
integrity of the airplane. The required actions include repairing any
cracks found. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-54-4010,
including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, dated July 21, 2008. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    There are no products of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are
placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Differences Between the 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.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0383; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-093-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-09-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-16675. Docket No. FAA-2011-0383;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-093-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 17,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311,
-312, and -313 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial
numbers except those on which Airbus Modification 49203 has been
incorporated in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54:
Nacelles/Pylons.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Further to accomplishment of A340 ALI tasks 545104, which
require a rototest inspection as per Non Destructive Testing Manual
(NTM) 54-51-04 of engine pylon pyramid attachment areas at aft end
of lower arms between Rib 1 and Rib 2 (2 fastener locations/pylon),
four findings have been reported and repaired.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is cracking, which might impact the structural
integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Ultrasonic Inspection

    (g) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (h) of
this AD: Perform an ultrasonic inspection of pylon pyramid
attachment areas at the aft end of the lower arms between Rib 1 and
Rib 2 without fastener removal (2 fastener locations per pylon), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A340-54-4010, dated July 21, 2008.
    (1) Before the accumulation of the applicable total flight
cycles or total flight hours, whichever occurs first, specified in
table 1 of this AD.
    (2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

              Table 1--Initial Inspection Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total        Total
                Weight variant                     flight       flight
                                                   cycles       hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000 through 004...............................       13,000       60,000
020, 021, 023 through 026, 028 through 030,          11,470       77,400
 Pre 49203....................................
027...........................................       11,000       30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) For airplanes belonging to weight variant 000 through 004
inspected before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALI) Task 545104-01-01, as
described in Airbus A340 Airworthiness Limitations Items Document
Ref: AI/SE-M4/95A.0051/97, Issue 10, dated February 1, 2007: Perform
the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD at the
compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Within 2,680 flight cycles or 19,200 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, after the most recent rototest inspection done in
accordance with ALI task 545104-01-01, but not to exceed the
accumulation of 15,280 total flight cycles or 76,400 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) If no cracking is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Repeat the inspection required in
paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the
earlier of the applicable flight cycles or flight hours interval
specified in table 2 of this AD.

                 Table 2--Repetitive Inspection Interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Flight       Flight
                Weight variant                     cycles       hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
000 through 004...............................        1,900        9,500
020, 021, 023 through 026, 028 through 030,           1,700        8,500
 Pre 49203....................................
027...........................................        1,700        8,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (j) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM 116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (k) 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. 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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) Special Flight Permits: Special flight permits, as described
in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed if any crack
is detected during any inspection required by this AD.

Related Information

    (l) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0140, dated
July 28, 2008; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-54-4010,
dated July 21, 2008; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-54-4010,
including Appendices 1, 2, and 3, dated July 21, 2008, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 15, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9921 Filed 4-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46363-46365]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19015]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75550; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers

July 29, 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 July 21, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away
Trading Centers, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option;
and (ii) update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent
proposed rule change by EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') in which EDGX
replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75479 (July 17,
2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts 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 Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading
Centers, to: (i) Delete references to the ROOC routing option; and (ii)
update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent proposed rule
change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the
MidPoint Peg Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 5.

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

ROOC Routing Option
    Under Rule 11.11(g)(8), an order utilizing the ROOC routing option
is designated by the User \7\ to participate in the opening, re-opening
(following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process of a
primary listing market (BATS, NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE MKT, or NYSE Arca) if
received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market. If
shares remain unexecuted after attempting to execute in the opening,
re-opening, or closing process, they are either posted to the EDGA
Book,\8\ executed, or routed to destinations on the System \9\ routing
table.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \8\ The term ``EDGA Book is defined as ``the System's electronic
file of orders.'' Rule 1.5(d).
    \9\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' Rule 1.5(cc).
    \10\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. Rule
11.11(g). Orders in BATS listed securities designated for
participation in the re-opening process on BATS following a halt,
suspension, or pause remain on the EDGA Book and be eligible for
execution once the halt, suspension, or pause has been lifted. Rule
11.11(g)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because few Users elect the ROOC routing option, the Exchange has
determined that the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure
and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the product.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the ROOC routing option
under Rule 11.11(g)(8) as well as a reference to the ROOC routing
option under Rule 11.11(g)(16). Users seeking to route orders to
participate in the opening, re-opening, or closing process of a primary
listing market may use alternative methods, such as connecting to those
markets directly or through a third party service provider, or electing
another routing option offered by the Exchange that enables a User to
post an order to certain primary listing markets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., Rule 11.11(g)(4) (describing the INET routing
option under which an order checks the System for available shares
and then is sent to Nasdaq. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the Nasdaq book, unless otherwise
instructed by the User), Rule 11.11(g)(5) (describing the RDOT
routing option under which an order checks the System for available
shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table.
If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are sent to the NYSE
and can be re-routed by the NYSE. Any remainder will be posted to
the NYSE, unless otherwise instructed by the User), and Rule
11.11(g)(6) (describing the RDOX routing option under which an order
checks the System for available shares, is then sent to the NYSE and
can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the NYSE book, unless otherwise
instructed by the User).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IOCM and ICMT Routing Options
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rules 11.11(g)(11) and (12) to
update routing options IOCM and ICMT to reflect a recent rule change by
EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint
Peg Order.\12\ Rule 11.11(g)(11) describes IOCM as a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares and then is
sent, as a MidPoint Match Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC,\13\ to
EDGX. Similarly, Rule 11.11(g)(12) describes ICMT as a routing option
under which an order checks the System for available shares, then is
sent to destinations on the System routing table and then is sent, as a
MidPoint Match Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC, to EDGX. Under both
IOCM and ICMT, if shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are
posted to the EDGA Book, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 5.
    \13\ See Rule 11.6(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 8, 2015, EDGX filed a proposed rule change with the
Commission for immediate effectiveness to, among other things, replace
the MidPoint Match Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.\14\ Therefore,
the Exchange proposes to update the description of the IOCM and ICMT
routing options to replace references to the MidPoint Match Order with
the MidPoint Peg Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed changes to the
descriptions of the IOCM and ICMT routing option immediately.\15\ The
Exchange will alert Users via a Trading Notice of the date upon which
it will discontinue the ROOC routing option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Implementation of the proposed rule change immediately upon
filing is contingent upon the Commission granting a waiver of the
30-day operative delay. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposal will permit unfair
discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers because the ROOC
routing option will no longer be available and the updates to the IOCM
and ICMT routing options would apply to all Users equally. The Exchange
has few Users electing the ROOC routing option and has determined that
the current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing
maintenance expense required to support the product. Routing through
the Exchange is voluntary and alternative routing options offered by
the Exchange as well as other methods remain available to Users that
wish to route orders to participate in the opening, re-opening, or
closing process of the primary listing market.\18\ In addition, the
ROOC routing option is not a core product offering by the Exchange, nor
is the Exchange required by the Act to offer such a product. The
proposed updates to routing options IOCM and ICMT are in response to a
recent rule change by EDGX in which EDGX replaced the MidPoint Match
Order with the MidPoint Peg Order.\19\ The proposal is intended to
accurately describe how orders utilizing the IOCM or ICMT routing
options are to be handled by the Exchange in light of the EDGX proposed
rule change mentioned above. Therefore, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change would make its rules clearer and less confusing
for investors; thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 11 and accompanying text.
    \19\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by
eliminating the ROOC routing option that is to be discontinued by the
Exchange as well as update the IOCM and ICMT routing options in
response to a recent proposed rule change by EDGX.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.

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

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-44(f)(6) under
the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-44(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission
to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day
operative delay would allow the Exchange to modify its rules in a
timely manner by: (i) Eliminating a rule that accounts for a service
the Exchange intends to discontinue; and (ii) updating its rules to
accurately describe how orders utilizing those routing options function
in light of the recent proposed rule change by EDGX, thereby avoiding
potential investor confusion during the operative delay period. Based
on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\22\ The Commission hereby grants the waiver and designates
the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2015-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2015-28 and should be
submitted on or before August 25, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19015 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27101-27102]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11005]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-4; SEC File No. 270-282; OMB Control No. 3235-0318.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The collection of information is entitled: ``Form N-4 (17 CFR
239.17b) under the Securities Act of 1933 and (17 CFR 274.11c) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940, registration statement of separate
accounts organized as unit investment trust.'' Form N-4 is the form
used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit
investment trusts that offer variable annuity contracts to register as
investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15
U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) and/or to register their securities under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Section 5 of the
Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77e) requires the filing of a registration
statement prior to the offer of securities to the public and that the
registration statement be effective before any securities are sold, and
Section 8 of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8) provides for
the registration of investment companies. Pursuant to Form N-4,
separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer
variable annuity contracts provide investors with a prospectus and a
statement of additional information covering essential information
about a separate account. Section 5(b) of the Securities Act requires
that investors be provided with a prospectus containing the information
required in a registration statement prior to or at the time of sale or
delivery of securities.
    The purpose of Form N-4 is to meet the filing and disclosure
requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and
to enable filers to provide investors with information necessary to
evaluate an investment in a security. The information required to be
filed with the Commission permits verification of compliance with
securities law requirements and assures the public availability and
dissemination of the information.
    The estimated annual number of filings on Form N-4 is 124 initial
registration statements and 1,127 post-effective amendments. The
estimated average number of portfolios per filing is one, both for
initial registration statements and post-effective amendments on Form
N-4. Accordingly, the estimated number of portfolios referenced in
initial Form N-4 filings annually is 124 and the estimated number of
portfolios referenced in post-effective amendment filings on Form N-4
annually is 1,127. The estimate of the annual hour burden for Form N-4
is approximately 278.5 hours per initial registration statement and
197.25 hours per post-effective amendment, for a total of 256,834.75
hours ((124 initial registration statements x 278.5 hours) + (1,127
post-effective amendments x 197.25 hours)).
    The current estimated annual cost burden for preparing an initial
Form N-4 filing is $22,319 per portfolio and the current estimated
annual cost burden for preparing a post-effective amendment filing on
Form N-4 is $21,155 per portfolio. The Commission estimates that, on an
annual basis, 124 portfolios will be referenced in initial Form N-4
filings and 1,127 portfolios will be referenced in post-effective
amendment filings on Form N-4. Thus, the estimated total annual cost
burden allocated to Form N 4 would be $26,609,241 ((124 x $22,319) +
(1,127 x $21,155)).
    Providing the information required by Form N-4 is mandatory.
Responses will not be kept confidential. Estimates of average burden
hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative
survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
control number.

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 2, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11005 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 43679] [FR Doc No: 2011-18446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM07-16-000]

Filing via the Internet; Notice of Additional File Formats for  efiling

    Take notice that the Commission has added to its list of acceptable  file formats the four-character file extensions for Microsoft Office  2007/2010, specifically MS Word (.docx), MS Excel (.xlsx), and MS  PowerPoint (.pptx). It is no longer necessary to save files from Office  2007 or Office 2010 in an Office 2003 format prior to submission.

    Dated: July 15, 2011. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011-18446 Filed 7-20-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 46346-46347]
[DOCID:fr08au08-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Fresno-Yosemite
International Airport, Fresno, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the City of
Fresno, California under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'')
and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the
description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report
No. 96-52 (1980). On July 6, 2005 (70 FR 50437-50438), the FAA
determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the city of Fresno
under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On July
28, 2008, the FAA approved the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport
noise compatibility program. All of the recommendations of the program
were approved. No program elements relating to new or revised flight
procedures for noise abatement were proposed by the airport operator.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Fresno Yosemite International Airport noise compatibility program is
July 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional
Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,
Western Pacific Region, Mailing address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles,
CA 90009-2007. Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne,
California 90261. Telephone 310/725-3615. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Fresno-
Yosemite International Airport, effective July 28, 2008.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FM personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of 14 CFR
Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be
submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Burlingame,
California.
    The City of Fresno submitted to the FAA on April 20, 2005, the
Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced
during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from October
2002 through June 2006. The Fresno-Yosemite International Airport Noise
Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with
applicable requirements on July 6, 2005. Notice of this determination
was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50437-
50438).
    The Fresno-Yosemite International Airport study contains a proposed
noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from
(2004 to beyond the year 2009). It was requested that the FAA evaluate
and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described
in 49 U.S.C. Sec.  47504 of the Act. The City of Fresno initially
submitted its noise compatibility program for the subject airport to
the FAA on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 33032-33033). In a letter received by
FAA on September 15, 2006, the City of Fresno requested that FAA
suspend its review and processing of the noise compatibility program in
order to modify the document. FAA terminated its formal review of the
City of Fresno's noise compatibility program effective September 15,
2006 (71 FR 56582). Subsequently, the City of Fresno submitted their
revised noise compatibility program to FAA. Therefore, the FAA has
formally received the noise compatibility program for FAT, effective on
April 18, 2008. The FAA began its review of the program on April 18,
2008, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or
disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be
an approval of such program.

    The submitted program contained twenty-five (25) proposed actions
for noise abatement, land use management and program management on and
off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the
procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150
have been satisfied. The overall program was approved, by the Manager
of the Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, effective July 28,
2008.
    Outright approval was granted for the two (2) noise abatement
measures, all fourteen (14) land use management measures and nine (9)
program management measures. The approved noise abatement measures
included: Maintain CANG Noise Abatement Departure Track Procedures; and
Continued Use of Minimum Altitudes Before Departure Turns Off Runways
29L and 29R.
    Approved land use measures include: Land Acquisition of Developed
Non-Compatible Property; Residential Sound Insulation Program; Noise
Sensitive Public Building Sound Insulation Program; Purchase of
Avigation Easements; Encourage Comprehensive Planning for Compatible
Land Uses and Adoption of NEMs; Amend Zoning for Compatible Use; Adopt
Airport Noise Overlay Zone; Amend Building Codes to Meet Interior Noise
Levels; Require Avigation Easement with New Construction; Support Real
Property Noise Disclosure; Transfer of Development Rights; Purchase of
Development Rights; Purchase of Vacant Land That May Be Developed Into
NonCompatible Use; Encourage the Local Jurisdictions to Develop
Compatible Land Uses in the Airport Environs.
    Approved Program Management measures include: Monitor Airport
Operations to Determine Need for NEM and/or NCP Updates; Acquire a
Flight Tracking System and/or Noise and Operations Monitoring System
(NOMS); Monitor Aircraft Engine Run-ups and Complaints as a Trigger for
a Future Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE) Replacement Needs Analysis
Study; Establish Staff Position to Monitor and Coordinate
Implementation of the NCP Measures; Increase Community Outreach; Expand
Airport Noise Section on the FAT Website; Develop Standardize Complaint
Collection, Response, and Recording Procedures; Establish an Airport
Noise Advisory Committee; Develop and Distribute Pilot Handouts.
    These determinations are set forth, in detail, in the Record of
Approval signed by the Manager of the Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region, on July 28, 2008. The Record of Approval, as well as
other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal,
are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the
administrative offices of the City of Fresno. The Record of Approval
will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/
airports/environmental/airport_noise/ part--150/states/.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on July 29, 2008.
Mark A. McClardy
Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600
[FR Doc. E8-18086 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M