[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18402-18403]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06877]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69187; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2013-08; NYSEMKT-2013-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action
on Proposed Rule Changes Amending the Attestation Requirement of Rules
107C and 107C-Equities, Respectively, To Allow a Retail Member
Organization To Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to
The Retail Liquidity Program Will Qualify as ``Retail Orders''

March 20, 2013.
    On January 17, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' and together with NYSE, the ``Exchanges'')
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\ proposed rule changes to
allow Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') to attest that
``substantially all,'' rather than all, orders submitted to the Retail
Liquidity Program qualify as ``Retail Orders.'' The proposed rule
changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on February
4, 2013.\3\ To date, the Commission has received one comment on the
proposals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68747 (Jan. 28,
2013), 78 FR 7824 (SR-NYSE-2013-08); and 68746 (Jan. 28, 2013), 78
FR 7842 (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-07).
    \4\ See Letter to the Commission from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), dated March 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for these filings is March 21, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule changes. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate

to designate a longer period to take action on the proposed rule
changes so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchanges'
proposals, which would lessen the attestation requirements of RMOs that
submit ``Retail Orders'' eligible to receive potential price
improvement through the respective Retail Liquidity Programs, and to
consider the comment letter that has been submitted in connection with
the proposed rule changes.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission designates May 5, 2013 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule changes (File
Numbers SR-NYSE-2013-08 and SR-NYSEMKT-2013-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-06877 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32190-32193]
[DOCID:fr12jn07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022; FRL-8324-9]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Youngstown, OH to Attainment of the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request to redesignate its portion of the
Youngstown area (Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties) to
attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of an ozone maintenance plan.
EPA is making a determination that the Youngstown, Ohio ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
determination is based on three years of complete, quality assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2004-2006 ozone seasons
that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been attained in the
area. EPA is approving, as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision,
the State's maintenance plan for the Ohio portion of the area. As a
result, Ohio has satisfied the criteria for redesignation of Mahoning,
Trumbull and Columbiana Counties to attainment and EPA is approving the
requested redesignation. Further, EPA is approving, for purposes of
transportation conformity, the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
for the years 2009 and 2018 that are contained in the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the area.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone
Patricia Morris, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Are Our Final Actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment
any area that is violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on three
consecutive years of air quality monitoring data. EPA designated
Youngstown, Ohio as a nonattainment area in a Federal Register notice
published on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). At the same time EPA
classified the area as a subpart 1 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.
    On February 15, 2007, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to
redesignate its portion of the Youngstown area to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. The redesignation request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2004 through 2006,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The data
satisfy the CAA requirements for attainment when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. Under the CAA,
nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient
complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to
determine that the areas have attained the standard and the areas meet
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The
April 18, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 19435) provides a discussion of
how the State of Ohio met these requirements for the Youngstown, Ohio
area.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period on the April 18,
2007, proposed rule. EPA received no comments.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 ``Final Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard'' (the Phase 1
implementation rule). South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, No. 04-1200., 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). This court decision
and EPA's interpretation of the decision was discussed in the proposed
rule. No comments were received.

III. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is taking several related actions. EPA is making a
determination that the Youngstown, Ohio nonattainment area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving Ohio's maintenance plan SIP
revision for Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana counties (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status).
The Ohio maintenance plan, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania SIP, is
designed to keep the area in attainment for ozone through 2018. Because
Ohio has met these and other prerequisites for redesignation, EPA is
approving the State's request to change the legal designation of the
counties from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
In addition, and supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance
plan, EPA is approving the 2009 and 2018 volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) MVEBs for the Ohio
counties for transportation conformity purposes. The 2009 motor vehicle
emission budgets are 19.58 tons per day for VOCs and 33.71 tons per day
for NOX. For 2018 the budgets are 10.36 tons per day for VOC
and 13.29 tons per day for NOX.
    EPA finds that there is good cause for these actions to become
effective immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date
is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment,
which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would
otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction'' and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 553(d) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any
new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time
to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves
the State of planning requirements for these 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of
these actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on
sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 13, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to force its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 1, 2007.
Walter Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (5) Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties, as submitted on
February 15, 2007. The maintenance plan establishes 2009 and 2018 motor
vehicle emission budgets for Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana
Counties. The 2009 motor vehicle emission budgets are 19.58 tons per
day for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 33.71 tons per day for
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). For 2018 the budgets are 10.36
tons per day for VOC and 13.29 tons per day for NOX.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entries for Youngstown-
Warren-Sharon, PA-OH: Columbiana, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties in
the table entitled ``Ohio-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                                       Ohio--Ozone
                                                                    [8-Hour Standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation \a\                                               Classification
       Designated area        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                           Type                       Date \1\                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, PA-  June 12, 2007.....................
 OH:
    Columbiana County........  ..................................  Attainment                   ...........................  ...........................
    Mahoning County..........  ..................................  Attainment                   ...........................  ...........................
    Trumbull County..........  ..................................  Attainment                   ...........................  ...........................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

 [FR Doc. E7-11229 Filed 6-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73492-73495]
[DOCID:fr12de05-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52888; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the SizeQuote Mechanism

December 5, 2005.
    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 October 11, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission

(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to modify its pilot SizeQuote Mechanism for the
execution of large-sized orders in open outcry to make clear that Floor
Brokers (``FBs'') may facilitate such orders with firm facilitation
orders and/or solicited orders. The Exchange is also proposing to
correct the text of the pilot rule in order to capitalize the phrase
``SizeQuote Order'' for consistency throughout the text. This change is
merely a non-substantive, typographical correction. No other changes to
the pilot are being requested at this time. The text of the proposed
rule change is below. Proposed additions are italicized; proposed
deletions are in brackets.

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules
* * * * *
Rule 6.74 ``Crossing'' Orders
    RULE 6.74. (a)-(e) No change.
(f) Open Outcry ``SizeQuote'' Mechanism
    (i) SizeQuotes Generally: The SizeQuote Mechanism is a process by
which a floor broker (``FB'') may execute and facilitate large-sized
orders in open outcry. Floor brokers must be willing to facilitate the
entire size of the order for which they request SizeQuotes (the
``SizeQuote Order'') or to execute it against one or more solicited
orders, or against a combination of solicited and facilitation orders.
The appropriate Market Performance Committee shall determine the
classes in which the SizeQuote Mechanism shall apply. The SizeQuote
Mechanism will operate as a pilot program which expires February 15,
2006.
    (A) Eligible Order Size: The appropriate MPC shall establish the
eligible order size however such size shall not be less than 250
contracts.
    (B) In-crowd Market Participants: The term ``in-crowd market
participants'' (``ICMPs'') shall be as defined in CBOE Rule 6.45A.
    (C) Public Customer Priority: Public customer orders in the
electronic book have priority to trade with a SizeQuote [o]Order over
any ICMP providing a SizeQuote response at the same price as the order
in the electronic book.
    (D) DPM Participation Rights: The DPM participation entitlement
shall not apply to SizeQuote transactions.
    (E) FBs may not execute a SizeQuote [o]Order at a price inferior to
the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''). Unless a SizeQuote request
is properly canceled in accordance with paragraph (iv), a FB is
obligated to execute the entire SizeQuote [o]Order at a price that is
not inferior to the NBBO in situations where there are no SizeQuote
responses received or where such responses are inferior to the NBBO.
    (ii) SizeQuote Procedure: Upon request by a FB for a SizeQuote,
ICMPs may respond with indications of the price and size at which they
would be willing to trade with a SizeQuote [o]Order. After the
conclusion of time during which interested ICMPs have been given the
opportunity to provide their indications, the FB must execute the
SizeQuote [o]Order with ICMPs and/or with a firm facilitation order
and/or solicited order(s) in accordance with the following procedures:
    (A) Executing the Order at ICMP's Best Price: ICMPs that provided
SizeQuote responses at the highest bid or lowest offer (``best price'')
have priority to trade with the SizeQuote Order at that best price.
Allocation of the order among ICMPs shall be pro rata, up to the size
of each ICMP's SizeQuote response. The FB must trade at the best price
any contracts remaining in the original SizeQuote Order that were not
executed by ICMPs providing SizeQuote responses.
    (B) Executing the Order at a Price that Improves upon ICMP's Price
by One Minimum Increment: ICMPs that provided SizeQuote responses at
the best price (``eligible ICMPs'') have priority to trade with the
SizeQuote Order at a price equal to one trading increment better than
the best price (``improved best price''). Allocation of the order among
eligible ICMPs at the improved best price shall be pro rata, up to the
size of each eligible ICMP's SizeQuote response. The FB must trade at
the improved best price any contracts remaining in the original
SizeQuote Order that were not executed by eligible ICMPs.
    (C) Trading at a Price that Improves upon ICMP's Price by More than
One Minimum Increment: A FB may execute the entire SizeQuote [o]Order
at a price two trading increments better than the best price
communicated by the ICMPs in their responses to the SizeQuote request.
    (iii) Definition of Trading Increments: Permissible trading
increments are $0.05 for options quoted below $3.00 and $0.10 for all
others. In classes in which bid-ask relief is granted pursuant to CBOE
Rule 8.7(b)(iv), the permissible trading increments shall also increase
by the corresponding amount. For example, if a series trading above
$3.00 has double-width bid-ask relief, the permissible trading
increment for purposes of this rule shall be $0.20.
    (iv) It will be a violation of a FB's duty of best execution to its
customer if it were to cancel a SizeQuote [o]Order to avoid execution
of the order at a better price. The availability of the SizeQuote
Mechanism does not alter a FB's best execution duty to get the best
price for its customer. A SizeQuote request can be canceled prior to
the receipt by the FB of responses to the SizeQuote request. Once the
FB receives a response to the SizeQuote request, if he or she were to
cancel the order and then subsequently attempt to execute the order at
an inferior price to the previous SizeQuote response, there would be a
presumption that the FB did so to avoid execution of its customer order
in whole or in part by others at the better price.
* * * * *

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 CBOE 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 6.74(f), which relates to the open outcry ``SizeQuote''
Mechanism, was approved on a pilot basis in February 2005 and will
expire in February 2006.\3\ This pilot rule provides a process by which
a FB, using his or her exercise of due diligence to execute orders at
the best price(s), may execute and facilitate large-sized orders in
open outcry. For purposes of the pilot

rule, the minimum qualifying order size is 250 contracts \4\ and FBs
must stand ready to facilitate the entire size of the order for which
they request SizeQuotes (referred to as the ``SizeQuote Order''). The
SizeQuote procedure currently works in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51205 (February 15,
2005), 70 FR 8647 (February 22, 2005) (approving SR-CBOE-2004-72 on
a pilot basis through February 15, 2006).
    \4\ The appropriate Exchange committee determines the classes in
which SizeQuote operates and may vary the minimum qualifying order
size, provided that such number may not be less than 250 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A FB holding an order for at least 250 contracts must
specifically request a SizeQuote from in-crowd market participants
(``ICMPs'').\5\ Upon such a request by a FB, ICMPs may respond with
indications of the price and size at which they would be willing to
trade with a SizeQuote Order. ICMPs may respond with any size and price
they desire (subject to the rules governing the current market maker
obligation requirements) and as such are not obligated to respond with
a size of at least 250 contracts.\6\ The rule provides that FBs may not
execute a SizeQuote Order at a price inferior to the national best bid
or offer (``NBBO''). Paragraph (f)(i)(E) clarifies that unless a
SizeQuote request is properly canceled in accordance with paragraph
(iv), a FB is obligated to execute the entire SizeQuote Order at a
price that is not inferior to the NBBO in situations where there are no
SizeQuote responses received or where such responses are inferior to
the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A, ``Priority and Allocation of
Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System,'' in-crowd market participant
includes an in-crowd Market-Maker, an in-crowd DPM, and a floor
broker representing orders in the trading crowd.
    \6\ CBOE Rule 8.7(d), ``Market Making Obligations in Applicable
Hybrid Classes,'' requires Market-Makers to respond to any request
by a FB for a market with a legal-width (as defined in CBOE Rule
8.7(b)(iv)), 10-contract minimum size quote in classes trading on
the CBOE Hybrid System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     After the conclusion of the time during which interested
ICMPs have been given the opportunity to provide their indications, the
FB will execute the SizeQuote Order he or she is holding with ICMPs or
with a facilitation order, or both, in accordance with procedures
specified in the rule, which vary depending upon whether the SizeQuote
Order is being executed at the ICMP's best price,\7\ at a price that
improves upon the ICMP's price by one minimum increment,\8\ or at a
price that improves upon the ICMP's best price by more than one minimum
increment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ICMPs that provided SizeQuote responses at the highest bid
or lowest offer (``best price'') have priority to trade with the
SizeQuote Order at that best price. For example, assume a FB
requests a SizeQuote and ICMPs respond with a market quote of
$1.00--1.20 for 1,000 contracts. This quote constitutes the ``best
price'' and those ICMPs that responded have priority at those
prices. If the FB chooses to trade at either of those prices, the
SizeQuote order will be allocated pro-rata to those ICMPs that
responded with a quote at the best price, up to the size of their
respective quotes. If in the above example the SizeQuote order is
for more than 1,000 contracts, the FB must trade the balance with a
facilitation order at the best price. ICMPs that did not respond to
the SizeQuote response would not be eligible to participate in the
allocation of this trade.
    \8\ ICMPs that provided SizeQuote responses at the best price
(``eligible ICMPs'') have priority to trade with the SizeQuote Order
at a price equal to one minimum increment better than the best price
(``improved best price''). Minimum increments are governed by CBOE
Rule 6.42, ``Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers.'' The term
``minimum increment'' is synonymous with ``trading increment.''
Accordingly, using the example above, eligible ICMPs, if they
desire, have priority at prices of $1.05 and $1.15 of up to 1,000
contracts. If the FB chooses to trade at either of those prices, the
SizeQuote order will be allocated pro-rata at the improved best
price to those eligible ICMPs that responded with a quote at the
best price, up to the size of their respective quotes. If the
SizeQuote order is for more than 1,000 contracts, the FB must trade
the balance with a facilitation order at the improved best price.
ICMPs that did not respond to the SizeQuote response would not be
eligible to participate in the allocation of this trade.
    \9\ A FB may execute the entire SizeQuote Order with a
facilitation order at a price two minimum increments better than the
best price communicated by the ICMPs in their responses to the
SizeQuote request. Using the example in note 7 above, a FB could
trade the SizeQuote order with a facilitation order at $1.10. ICMPs
would not be able to participate in the trade at that price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Rule also provides that it will be a violation of a
FB's duty of best execution to its customer if it were to cancel a
SizeQuote Order to avoid execution of the order at a better price. The
availability of the SizeQuote Mechanism does not alter a FB's best
execution duty to get the best price for its customer. A SizeQuote
request can be canceled prior to the receipt by the FB of responses to
the SizeQuote request. Once the FB receives a response to the SizeQuote
request, if he or she were to cancel the order and then subsequently
attempt to execute the order at an inferior price to the previous
SizeQuote response, there would be a presumption that the FB did so to
avoid execution of its customer order in whole or in part by others at
the better price.
    CBOE is now proposing to modify the pilot program to enable a FB to
execute a SizeQuote Order with either a firm facilitation order, one or
more solicited orders, or a combination of the FB's facilitation order
and such solicited order(s). CBOE believes that making this change to
the pilot rule is consistent with existing Exchange rules that enable
members to facilitate large customer orders by crossing them with
orders for firm accounts or orders solicited from other sources.\10\
The procedures for executing a SizeQuote Order will remain unchanged
under Rule 6.74(f), as amended, and solicited orders will be treated as
facilitated orders in all respects for purposes of the operation of the
SizeQuote Mechanism algorithm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22273 (July 29,
1985), 50 FR 31449 (August 2, 1985) (SR-CBOE-85-23) (order approving
a proposed change to CBOE Rules 6.74 and 6.53 to expand the
provisions governing facilitations to allow for the crossing of a
public customer order with a ``facilitation'' order solicited from
another source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to modify the pilot program
in order to clarify that it includes solicited orders. The revisions,
in pertinent part, benefit FB customers by expanding the number of
potential ``facilitations'' (and thus enable customers to receive
executions on orders that may not have been otherwise executable) and
benefit members by allowing them to facilitate customer orders in
crossing transactions without exposing their own capital to market
risk, while at the same time maintaining the existing in-crowd market
participation opportunities through the auction market.
    Finally, the Exchange is also proposing to correct the text of the
pilot rule in order to capitalize the phrase ``SizeQuote Order'' for
consistency throughout the text. This change is merely a non-
substantive, typographical correction.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-83. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2005-83 and should be submitted on or before
January 3, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7192 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4521-4522]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 367

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0009]

Uniform Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors; Request for
Nominations

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

ACTION: Notice Requesting Public Comment on Motor Carrier Industry
Nominations to the Board of Directors.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA solicits nominations and applications from
interested persons to serve as motor carrier industry representatives
on the Board of Directors of the Unified Carrier Registration Plan,
which governs the Uniform Carrier Registration Agreement (UCRA), as
authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Agency will appoint
five members from the motor carrier industry. The UCRA governs the
registration and the collection and distribution of fees paid by for-
hire and private motor carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and
leasing companies. The UCRA replaced the Single State Registration
System (SSRS), which was repealed January 1, 2008.

DATES: Nominations to the Board of Directors must be received on or
before February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to this notice, identified by docket
number FMCSA-2010-0009, by any of the following methods--Internet,
facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. The FDMS is the preferred
method for submitting comments, and we urge you to use it. In the
``Comment'' or ``Submission'' section, type Docket ID Number ``FMCSA-
2010-0009'', select ``Go'', and then click on ``Send a Comment or
Submission.'' You will receive a tracking number when you submit a
comment.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Docket: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
background information and documents mentioned in this preamble, are
part of docket FMCSA-2010-0009, and are available for inspection and
copying on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may also
view and copy documents at the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Unit, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    Privacy Act: All comments will be posted without change including
any personal information provided to the FDMS at http://
www.regulations.gov. Anyone can search the electronic form of all our
dockets in FDMS, by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). The Department of Transportation's (DOT)
complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed at http://
docketsinfo.dot.gov. Comments received after the comment closing date
will be included in the docket, and we will consider late comments to
the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any
time after the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie Otto, Office of Enforcement
and Program Delivery,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Background

    Section 4305(b) of SAFETEA-LU [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144,
August 10, 2005] enacted 49 U.S.C. 14504a titled ``Unified carrier
registration system plan and agreement.'' Under the UCRA, motor
carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and
leasing companies register and pay certain fees. The Unified Carrier
Registration Plan Board of Directors must issue rules and regulations
to govern the UCR. Section 14504a(a)(9) defines the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan as the organization of State, Federal, and industry
representatives responsible for developing, implementing, and
administering the UCRA. Section 14504a(d)(1)(B) directed the Secretary
to establish a Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
made up of 15 members from FMCSA, State government, and the motor
carrier industry. The Board also must recommend initial annual fees to
be assessed against carriers, leasing companies, brokers, and freight
forwarders under the UCRA, as well as any annual adjustments to those
fees. Section 14504a(d) stipulates that the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan Board of Directors must consist of directors from the
following groups:
    U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department): One individual,
either the FMCSA Deputy Administrator or such other Presidential
appointee from the Department, must represent the Department.
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: One director must be
selected from each of the FMCSA service areas (as defined by FMCSA on
January 1, 2005) from among the chief administrative officers of the
State agencies responsible for administering the UCRA.
    State Agencies: The five directors selected to represent State
agencies must be from among the professional

staffs of State agencies responsible for overseeing the administration
of the UCRA and must be nominated by the National Conference of State
Transportation Specialists (NCSTS), a non-profit organization founded
in 1959 and consisting of State agencies involved in transportation
safety, insurance and consumer protection.
    Motor Carrier Industry: Five directors must be from the motor
carrier industry. Today's publication serves as a notice for public
comment and recommendations for the five members of the UCRA Board of
Directors from the motor carrier industry in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
14504a(d). At least one of the five motor carrier industry directors
must be from ``a national trade association representing the general
motor carrier of property industry'' and one of them must be from ``a
motor carrier that falls within the smallest fleet fee bracket.''
    The establishment of the Board was announced in the Federal
Register on May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27777). In that notice, the Agency
recognized the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) as the
national trade association representing the general motor carrier of
property industry. ATA is a national affiliation of State trucking
organizations representing the national, State and local interests of
the 50 affiliated State trucking associations; and the interests of
specialized areas of the trucking industry through conferences and
councils. The Agency selected the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) as the organization from which to appoint an
individual to represent motor carriers comprising the smallest fleet
fee bracket. OOIDA is a national trade association representing the
interests of small trucking companies and drivers. The Secretary has
discretion to appoint the remaining three industry representatives. In
order to ensure participation on the Board by segments of the industry
newly subject to the SSRS replacement system, the Secretary previously
appointed three members as follows: (1) One member from the
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), (2) one member from
the National Private Truck Council (NPTC), and (3) one member from Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart). TIA represents transportation
intermediaries such as brokers, freight forwarders, and shippers doing
business in domestic and international commerce. NPTC is a national
trade association representing private motor carrier fleets. With
nearly 7,000 tractors, over 40,000 trailers, and annual sales over $285
billion, Wal-Mart is the nation's largest private motor carrier.
    Each of the five current Directors from the motor carrier industry
served an initial term of 3 years. Those terms expired, but the
directors continue to serve until their replacements are appointed;
each of them may be reappointed (49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(1)(D)(iii) and
(iv)).

Board Member Nominations

    FMCSA seeks either nominations of, or expressions of interest from,
individuals to serve as members of the board of directors for the UCR
Plan from the motor carrier industry. Nominations or expressions of
interest should be transmitted by means of the procedures for comments
specified earlier in this notice. FMCSA and the Department will make
the appointments for the five members from the motor carrier industry
for three-year terms, expiring on May 31, 2012.

    Issued on: January 15, 2010.
William A. Quade,
Associate Administrator, Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2010-1772 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72423-72425]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68317; File No. SR-NSX-2012-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a New Order Type Called the Double Play Order

November 29, 2012.
    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 November 14, 2012, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or the
``Exchange'') 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
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 is proposing to amend NSX Rule 11.11(c), entitled
``Order and Modifiers'' to provide a new order type, a Double Play
Order. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nsx.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 is proposing to amend NSX Rule 11.11(c) entitled
``Order and Modifiers'' to provide a new order type, a Double Play
Order. The proposed Double Play Order is a market or limit order that
instructs the System \3\ to route the order to a specified away Trading
Center(s) \4\ as approved by the Exchange from time to time.\5\ Such
Trading Centers may include execution venues known as ``dark pools.''
The order will not be exposed to the NSX Book \6\ before being routed
to a specified destination or destinations. An order that is not
executed in full after routing away would return to the Exchange,
receive a new timestamp, and be processed in the manner described in
NSX Rule 11.14.(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under Exchange Rule 1.5, the term ``System'' is defined as
``the electronic communications and trading facility * * * through
which orders of [ETP Holders] are consolidated for ranking and
execution.''
    \4\ NSX Rule 2.11. A Trading Center is defined as ``other
securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated
trading systems, electronic communication networks or other brokers
or dealers.''
    \5\ The Exchange will not directly route orders to the Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc. until approved as an inbound routing facility
of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
    \6\ Under Exchange Rule 1.5, the term ``NSX Book'' is defined as
``the System's electronic file of orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will route the Double Play Order through NSX
Securities, Inc., an affiliate and facility of the Exchange (``Outbound
Router'').\7\ The Outbound

Router will be subject to the requirements set forth in NSX Rule 2.11.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that routing of Double Play Orders
is consistent with the previously approved functions of the Outbound
Router, and the Exchange does not believe these functions are expanded
through the addition of this order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Outbound Router is regulated as a facility of the
Exchange (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'')), 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(2), subject to Section 6 of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that both the BATS Exchange, Inc.\8\ (``BATS'')
and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') \9\ have similar order
types. Both BATS and Nasdaq members are given the option of entering an
order that instructs the exchange to route the order to a specified
away trading center or centers. There is no material difference between
the BATS Modified Destination Specific Order and the NSX's Double Play
Order. Both orders are similar in that: (1) Orders that are not
executed in full are returned to the exchange; and (2) each receives
new timestamps upon return to the exchange and a new time price
priority as appropriate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BATS Rule 11.9(c)(13). See also Exchange Act Release No.
58546 (September 15, 2008) 73 FR 54440 (September 19, 2008) (SR-
BATS-2008-003).
    \9\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(9). See also Exchange Act Release
No. 55405 (March 6, 2007) 72 FR 11069 (March 12, 2007) (SR-Nasdaq-
2007-020).
    \10\ Unlike the BATS Modified Destination Specific Order and
NSX's proposed Double Play Order, the Nasdaq Directed Orders that
are not executed in full are returned to the customer and not
Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6 of the Exchange Act,\11\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Exchange Act.\12\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the Double Play
Order furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
because it will enable ETP Holders to access pools of liquidity that
may offer a faster response time and a lower fee which promotes just
and equitable principles of trade and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system. Further, the Double Play
Order is designed to allow ETP Holders to obtain response times that
are generally consistent with those of other market centers that offer
order handling and routing options that are designed to facilitate
access to two or more markets with comparable access fees. In so doing,
the proposed rule filing promotes the protection of investors and the
protection of the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, 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 and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\16\ However,
Rule 19b-4(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 requested that the Commission waive
the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\
which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 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.
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented that the proposed rule is similar to and
based on rules of other exchanges and that the waiver of the 30-day
operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately compete with
other exchanges that offer a similar order type. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it would give ETP Holders
enhanced order execution opportunities for market participants by
allowing such participants to access, at a potentially reduced fee,
pools of liquidity in addition to orders resting on the Exchange. The
Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because such
waiver would allow the Exchange to offer an order type immediately to
market participants that is similar to an order type that has been
offered by other exchanges. In addition, as the proposed rule change is
similar to order types offered by other national securities exchanges,
the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change raises
any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 sixty (60) days of the filing of such 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2012-22 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-NSX-2012-22. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NSX-2012-22 and should be submitted on or before
December 26, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29281 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The requirements for the aftermarket catalytic converter policy (AMCC Policy) are established in the Federal Register (51 FR28114-28119, 28113 (Aug. 5, 1986); 52 FR. 42144 (Nov. 3, 1987)), not in the Code of Federal Regulations.


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Microsoft Word - EPA Ltr Regarding MOA Uses 9-10-09.doc">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/11/2009 11:44:51 ">
<TITLE>Microsoft Word - EPA Ltr Regarding MOA Uses 9-10-09.doc</TITLE>

September 10, 2009
Barbara Madden
Office of Pesticide Programs
Registration Division (7505P)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room S-4900, One Potomac Yard
2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
ATTN: Barbara Madden
Minor Use Officer, Registration Division
RE:
Rubigan A.S., Turf and Ornamental
Rubigan A.S. T&O, EPA Reg. No. 10163-274
Dear Ms. Madden:
In July 2003, Gowan signed a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA regarding fenarimol.  We have
honored the terms of the agreement since signing and are not marketing the product in parks or
residential areas. Since signing the uses have been limited to golf course and commercial areas.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me either by e-mail at
<FONT STYLE="font-size<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Sincerely,

Julie Butcher
Senior Registration Specialist
Enclosures


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58354-58357]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2207; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-003-AD;
Amendment 39-18272; AD 2015-19-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-02-02 for
certain Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-
TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC
(C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. AD 97-02-02 required applying torque
to the control column pitch bearing attaching nuts, inspecting the
bearing assembly, inspecting the elevator control rod end bearing
retainer/dust seals, and replacing or installing new parts as
necessary. This new AD requires inspecting for movement and correct
torque of the elevator control pivot bearing, inspecting the elevator
control rod for damage and correct configuration, and replacing parts
as necessary. This AD also requires a 10,000-hour time-in-service (TIS)
repetitive replacement of the control column pivot bearing and elevator
control rod bolt and requires replacement of the control column pivot
bearing with the improved design by 35,000 hours TIS. This AD was
prompted by loss of elevator control due to failure of the bolt
attaching the elevator control rod to the elevator walking beam under
the cockpit floor. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 3, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 3,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact M7
Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:
(210) 824-9421; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No.
FAA-2015-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.govby searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2207; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650,
San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 97-02-02, Amendment 39-9886 (62 FR 2552,
January 17, 1997), (``AD 97-02-02''). AD 97-02-02 applied to certain M7
Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B),
SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC,
SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2015 (80 FR 34326). The NPRM was prompted
by an operator experiencing complete loss of elevator control due to
failure of the bolt attaching the elevator control rod to the elevator
walking beam under the cockpit floor. A follow-on inspection of the
operator's fleet revealed a variety of hardware installed. Some
hardware matched the illustrated parts catalog (IPC), some matched the
AD 97-02-02 configuration, and some matched neither of those
configurations.
    When AD 97-02-02 was issued, the IPC was never revised to match the
hardware configuration called out in AD 97-02-02 or in the service
information associated with that AD. Because of the conflict between
the AD and the IPC configurations, an airplane that was in compliance
with the requirements of AD 97-02-02 could have had an incorrect
hardware configuration installed during routine maintenance after
complying with the AD. The IPC has been updated and corrected by M7
Aerospace, LLC.
    Also, since we issued AD 97-02-02, the manufacturer developed an
improved design for the control column pivot bearing and support
structure that terminates the repetitive torque check and replacement
of control column pivot bearings.
    The manufacturer also issued new service information that adds the
10,000-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the control column pivot
bearing that is in the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the
airplane maintenance manual (AMM) and (if this revision is mandated)
requires the replacement of the pivot bearing with the improved design
by 35,000 hours TIS that is in the supplemental inspections document
(SID). Issuance of

the new service information, the revised IPC, and this AD will
eliminate the conflicts between AD 97-02-02, the service information,
the IPC, the ALS, and the SID.
    The NPRM (80 FR 34326, June 16, 2015) proposed to require
inspecting for movement and correct torque of the elevator control
pivot bearing, inspecting the elevator control rod for damage and
correct configuration, and replacing parts as necessary. The NPRM also
proposed to require a 10,000-hour TIS repetitive replacement of the
control column pivot bearing and elevator control rod bolt and require
replacement of the control column pivot bearing with the improved
design by 35,000 hours TIS. Replacing the original control column pivot
bearing with the improved design terminates the requirement to
repetitively replace the original control column pivot bearing every
10,000 hours. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on
these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 34326, June 16,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 34326, June 16, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 34326, June 16, 2015).

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR 51

    We reviewed M7 Aerospace SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-30-
046 R2, dated December 5, 2014; Fairchild Aircraft SA26 Series Service
Bulletin No. 26-27-30-047, dated June 16, 1997; M7 Aerospace SA226
Series Service Bulletin No. 226-27-060 R2, dated December 5, 2014;
Fairchild Aerospace SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-27-061, dated
June 16, 1997; M7 Aerospace SA227 Series Service Bulletin, No. 227-27-
041 R2, dated December 5, 2014; Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Service
Bulletin No. 227-27-042, dated June 16, 1997; M7 Aerospace LLC SA227
Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin No. CC7-27-010 R2, dated
December 5, 2014; and Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Commuter Category
Service Bulletin No. CC7-27-011, dated June 16, 1997. The service
information describes procedures for inspecting for movement and
correct torque of the elevator control pivot bearing, inspecting the
elevator control rod for damage, and replacing parts as necessary. The
service information also adds a repetitive replacement of the control
column pivot bearings at 10,000 hours TIS and requires replacement of
the control column pivot bearing with the improved design within 35,000
hours TIS. This information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 360 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost              Parts cost            product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of torque on the        2 work-hours x $85    Not applicable.........            $170         $61,200
 control column pivot bearing.      per hour = $170.
Control column pivot bearing       8 work-hours x $85    $300...................             980         352,800
 replacement.                       per hour = $680.
New designed control column pivot  20 work-hours x $85   $2,450.................           4,150       1,494,000
 bearing replacement.               per hour = $1,700.
Elevator rod end bolt replacement  4 work-hours x $85    $10....................             350         126,000
                                    per hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
97-02-02, Amendment 39-9886 (62 FR 2552, January 17, 1997), and adding
the following new AD:

2015-19-10 M7 Aerospace: Amendment 39-18272; Docket No. FAA-2015-
2207; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-003-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 3, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 97-02-02, Amendment 39-9886 (62 FR 2552,
January 17, 1997).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T,
SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT,
SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), SA227-TT, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    AD 97-02-02 (62 FR 2552, January 17, 1997) (``AD 97-02-02'')
resulted from reports of Fairchild SA227 series airplanes losing
pitch control in-flight. This supersedure was prompted by an
operator experiencing complete loss of elevator control because of
failure of the bolt attaching the elevator control rod to the
elevator walking beam under the cockpit floor. We are issuing this
AD to prevent loss of pitch control, which if not corrected, could
result in loss of airplane control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC, serial numbers
892, 893, and 895 and up, have the revised (modified) configuration.
Since those airplanes are already in compliance, they do not have to
do the actions in paragraphs (h) or (i) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs. Those airplanes must still do the actions required in
paragraph (j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.

(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD allows credit for the control column pivot bearing
torque check and initial replacement required in paragraph (i)(2) of
this AD and the elevator rod bolt inspection and initial replacement
required in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(3)(i) of this AD, if done
before November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), following
the procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(4) of this AD:
    (1) M7 Aerospace SA227 Commuter Category Service Bulletin No.
CC7-27-010, original issue or revision 1.
    (2) M7 Aerospace SA227 Series Service Bulletin No. 227-27-041,
original issue or revision 1.
    (3) M7 Aerospace SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-27-060,
original issue or revision 1.
    (4) M7 Aerospace SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-30-046,
original issue or revision 1.

(h) Control Column Pivot Bearing Revised (Modified) Configuration

    (1) On or before the airplane accumulates a total of 35,000
hours time-in-service (TIS) or within the next 1,000 hours TIS after
November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
later, you must revise (modify) the control column pivot bearing
configuration with the improved design. Use the applicable service
information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of
this AD. Revising (modifying) the configuration of the control
column pivot bearing with the improved design terminates the actions
for paragraph (i) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, but you
must still complete the required actions in paragraph (j) of this
AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (i) Fairchild Aircraft SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-
30-047, dated June 16, 1997;
    (ii) Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-
27-061, dated June 16, 1997;
    (iii) Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Service Bulletin No. 227-
27-042, dated June 16, 1997; or
    (iv) Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Commuter Category No. CC7-
27-011, dated June 16, 1997.
    (2) You may at any time before 35,000 hours TIS revise (modify)
the control column pivot bearing configuration with the improved
design to terminate the repetitive replacement of the original
control column pivot bearing using the applicable service
information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of
this AD. This action terminates the requirements of paragraph (i) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs, but you must still complete
the required actions in paragraph (j) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.

(i) Torque Check or Replacement of the Control Column Pivot Bearing

    (1) Use the service information, as applicable, listed in
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD to do a control
column pivot bearing torque check or replacement at the applicable
compliance times in paragraph (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this AD, including
all subparagraphs:
    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-30-
046 R2, dated December 5, 2014;
    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-27-
060 R2, dated December 5, 2014;
    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin No. 227-27-
041 R2, dated December 5, 2014; or
    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service
Bulletin No. CC7-27-010 R2, December 5, 2014.
    (2) For airplanes where the control column pivot bearing has
been torque checked or replaced within the last 10,000 hours TIS
before November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) using the
applicable service information listed in paragraph (g)(1) through
(g)(4) or (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD, do one of the
following actions:
    (i) Within the next 10,000 hours TIS after the last control
column pivot bearing replacement or within the next 1,000 hours TIS
after November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever
occurs later, and repetitively thereafter every 10,000 hours TIS,
replace the control column pivot bearing following paragraph 2.B. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of
this AD; or
    (ii) Within the next 10,000 hours TIS after the last control
column pivot bearing replacement or within the next 1,000 hours TIS
after November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever
occurs later, revise (modify) the control column pivot bearing
configuration with the improved design using the applicable service
information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of
this AD. Revising (modifying) the configuration of the control
column pivot bearing with the improved design terminates the
repetitive replacement of the original control column pivot bearing.
No other actions are required for paragraph (i) of this AD,
including all subparagraphs, but you must still complete the actions
in paragraph (j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (3) For airplanes where the control column pivot bearing has not
been torque checked or replaced within the last 10,000 hours TIS
before November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) using the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(4) or (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD, within the next
200 hours TIS after November 3, 2015 (the effective date of this
AD), torque check the control column pivot bearing following
paragraph 2.A. of the service information listed in paragraphs
(i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD.
    (4) If nut movement occurs during the torque check required in
paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, do one of the following actions:
    (i) Before further flight and repetitively thereafter at
intervals not to exceed every 10,000 hours TIS, replace the control
column pivot bearing following paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information listed in
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD; or
    (ii) Before further flight, revise (modify) the control column
pivot bearing configuration with the improved design using the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
through (h)(1)(iv) of this AD. Revising (modifying) the
configuration of the control column pivot bearing with the improved
design terminates the repetitive replacement of the original control
column pivot bearing. No other actions are required for paragraph
(i) of this AD, including all

subparagraphs, but you must still complete the actions in paragraph
(j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (5) If no nut movement occurs during the torque check required
in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, do one of the following actions:
    (i) Within the next 1,000 hours TIS after November 3, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD), replace the control column pivot bearing
following paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD; or
    (ii) Within the next 1,000 hours TIS after November 3, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD), revise (modify) the control column pivot
bearing configuration with the improved design using the applicable
service information listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(h)(1)(iv) of this AD. Revising (modifying) the configuration of the
control column pivot bearing with the improved design terminates the
repetitive replacement of the original control column pivot bearing.

(j) Inspect the Elevator Control Rod Ends and Hardware

    (1) Within the next 200 hours TIS after November 3, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD), inspect the elevator control rod ends
and hardware for wear, creasing, or other damage and verify the
elevator rod bolt and attachment hardware for correct configuration
following paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD.
    (2) If any damage is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD or the elevator rod bolt and attachment
hardware does not match the correct configuration, before further
flight, replace the elevator rod bolt, rod ends, and associated
hardware following paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions
of the applicable service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD.
    (3) Replace the elevator rod end bolt and associated hardware
following paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD at whichever of the following
compliance times applies and repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 10,000 hours TIS:
    (i) For airplanes where the elevator rod bolt has been replaced:
Within the next 10,000 hours TIS after the last elevator rod bolt
replacement or within the next 1,000 hours TIS after November 3,
2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later; or
    (ii) For airplanes where the elevator rod bolt has never been
replaced: Within the next 200 hours TIS after November 3, 2015 (the
effective date of this AD).

 (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210)
308-3365; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-30-
046 R2, dated December 5, 2014.
    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-27-
060 R2, dated December 5, 2014.
    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin No. 227-27-
041 R2, dated December 5, 2014.
    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service
Bulletin No. CC7-27-010 R2, December 5, 2014.
    (v) Fairchild Aircraft SA26 Series Service Bulletin No. 26-27-
30-047, dated June 16, 1997.
    (vi) Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service Bulletin No. 226-
27-061, dated June 16, 1997.
    (vii) Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Service Bulletin No. 227-
27-042, dated June 16, 1997.
    (viii) Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Commuter Category No.
CC7-27-011, dated June 16, 1997.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact M7
Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
816-329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 17, 2015.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24249 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P