49768 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2003 / Notices standard over the next three years. However, we have assumed that one furnace will be rebuilt per year and that each facility will make a major adjustment once per year which will require revising its operational plan. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 229 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Owners or operators of secondary lead smelters. Estimated Number of Respondents: 23. Frequency of Response: Semiannual and initially. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 16,034 hours. Estimated Total Capital and Operations & Maintenance ( O & M) Annual Costs: $ 150,000 which includes zero annualized capital/ startup costs and $ 150,000 annual O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of one hour in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens due to the rounding off of the mathematical calculations. There was no increase in the number of new or modified sources. The increase in the annual cost, is due to the use of an updated revised hourly pay rate from the United States Department of Labor. Dated: August 12, 2003.

Doreen Sterling,

Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   21182 Filed 8   18   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7545   9]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notices.

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB) responses to Agency clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Auby ( 202) 566   1672, or e mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request ( ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR No. 2088.01; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under EPA's Hospitals for a Healthy Environment ( H2E) Program; was approved 07/ 14/ 2003; OMB Number 2070   0166; expires 07/ 31/ 2006.

Dated: August 7, 2003.

Doreen Sterling,

Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   21183 Filed 8   18   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ RCRA   2003   0008; FRL   7545   8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1381.07 ( OMB No. 2050   0122) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting for 40 CFR Part 258   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Recordkeeping and Reporting for 40 CFR Part 258   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices ( OMB Control No. 2050   0122, EPA ICR No. 1381.07) This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 18, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Municipal Information and Analysis Branch, Office of solid Waste, mailcode 5306W, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9037; fax number: ( 703) 308   8686; e mail address: dufficy. craig@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 19, 2003 ( 53 FR 13299), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0008, which is available for public viewing at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 58 Aug 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19AUN1. SGM 19AUN1 49769 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2003 / Notices Docket is ( 202) 566   0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to rcradocket epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting for 40 CFR Part 258   Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices ( OMB Control No. 2050   0122, EPA ICR Number 1381.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: In order to effectively implement and enforce final changes to 40 CFR part 258 on a State level, owners/ operators of municipal solid waste landfills have to comply with the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Respondents include owners or operators of new municipal solid waste landfills ( MSWLFs), existing MSWLFs, and lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. The respondents, in complying with 40 CFR part 258, are required to record information in the facility operating record, pursuant to § 258.29, as it becomes available. The operating record must be supplied to the State as requested until the end of the post closure care period of the MSWLF. The information collected will be used by the State Director to confirm owner or operator compliance with the regulations under part 258. These owners or operators could include Federal, State, and local governments, and private waste management companies. Facilities in SIC codes 922, 495, 282, 281, and 287 may be affected by this rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 101 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Owners/ Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Estimated Number of Respondents: 1900. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 191,028 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital and Operating & Maintenance Cost Burden: $ 2,210,853. Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 48,830 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is a result of decreasing numbers ( approximately 17%) of MSWLFs.

Dated: August 12, 2003. Doreen Sterling, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   21184 Filed 8   18   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OW   2003   0027; FRL   7545   7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Water Quality Program Management Resource ( Gap) Analysis, EPA ICR Number 1945.02, OMB Control Number 2040   0216 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 18, 2003. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW   2003   0027, to ( 1) EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to ow docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB),

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 58 Aug 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19AUN1. SGM 19AUN1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68239-68243]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26846]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87699; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19,
SR-NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
National, Inc.; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule
Changes To Amend the Exchanges' Co-Location Price Lists To Offer Co-
Location Users Access to the NMS Network and Establish Associated Fees

December 9, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 22, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National,
Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc. each filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend their co-location fee
schedules to offer co-location Users \3\ access to the ``NMS
Network''--an alternate, dedicated network providing connectivity to
data feeds for the National Market System Plans for which Securities
Industry Automation Corporation (``SIAC'') is engaged as the exclusive
securities information processor (``SIP'')--and establish associated
fees. NYSE American LLC filed with the Commission a substantively
identical filing on August 23, 2019.\4\ The proposed rule changes were
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 10, 2019.\5\
On October 24, 2019, the Commission extended the time period within
which to approve the proposed rule changes, disapprove the proposed
rule changes, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule changes, to December 9, 2019.\6\ The
Commission received one comment letter on the proposal, a response from
the Exchanges, and a subsequent letter from the original commenter.\7\
This order institutes proceedings pursuant to Exchange Act Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether to approve or disapprove File Nos. SR-
NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19, SR-

NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See infra note 11 defining ``Users.''
    \4\ The New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National, Inc., NYSE
Arca, Inc., and NYSE American, LLC are collectively referred to
herein as ``NYSE'' or the ``Exchanges.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 86865 (September 4,
2019), 84 FR 47592 (SR-NYSE-2019-46); 86869 (September 4, 2019), 84
FR 47600 (SR-NYSENAT-2019-19); 86868 (September 4, 2019), 84 FR
47610 (SR-NYSEArca-2019-61); 86867 (September 4, 2019), 84 FR 47563
(SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34) (collectively, the ``Notices''). For ease of
reference, page citations are to the Notice for SR-NYSE-2019-46.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87399, 84 FR 58189
(October 30, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-46); 87402, 84 FR 58187 (October
30, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-19); 87400, 84 FR 58189 (October 30,
2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-61); 87401, 84 FR 58188 (October 30, 2019)
(SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34).
    \7\ See, respectively, letter dated October 24, 2019 from John
M. Yetter, Vice President and Senior Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission (``Nasdaq Letter''); letter dated November 8, 2019 from
Elizabeth K. King, Chief Regulatory Officer, ICE, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary, NYSE to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission (``NYSE Response Letter''); and letter dated November 25,
2019 from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, Nasdaq, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission
(``Second Nasdaq Letter'').
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78(s)(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

A. Background

    As more fully set forth in the Notices, the Exchanges' affiliate,
SIAC, is engaged as the exclusive SIP for (i) the CTA Plan (providing
last-sale price information in Tape A and Tape B-listed securities);
(ii) the CQ Plan (providing quotation information in Tape A and B-
listed securities) (together, the ``CTA/CQ Plans''); and (iii) the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') Plan (providing quotation
and last-sale price information in all exchange options trading).\9\
SIAC operates in the same data center (``Data Center'') in Mahwah, New
Jersey where the Exchanges operate and also offer co-location
services.\10\ The Exchanges make co-location services available to
market participants (``Users'') upon request for fees set forth on
price lists filed with the Commission.\11\ In the Data Center, Users
currently can connect to the CTA Plan, CQ Plan, and OPRA Plan data
feeds (the ``SIAC NMS Feeds'') over the same network connections
through which they access other co-location services.\12\ Specifically,
a User can connect to any or all of the SIAC NMS Feeds via either the
IP network or the Liquidity Center Network (``LCN''), which are the
local area networks in the Data Center.\13\ When a User purchases
access to the LCN or IP network, it receives connectivity to certain
market data products (defined in the price lists as the ``Included Data
Products'') that it selects, subject to technical provisioning
requirements and authorization from the provider of the data feed.\14\
The SIAC NMS Feeds are among the Included Data Products.\15\ As such,
the price lists currently do not specify any separate fees for
connectivity to the SIAC NMS Feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notices supra note 5, at n. 8.
    \10\ See Notices, supra note 5, 84 FR at 47593.
    \11\ As stated in the Notices, for purposes of the Exchanges'
co-location services, a ``User'' means any market participant that
requests to receive co-location services directly from the Exchange.
See Notices, supra note 5, at n. 5. As stated in the price list of
each of the Exchanges, a User that incurs co-location fees for a
particular co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject
to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by
another of the Exchanges. See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ The Exchanges offer IP network and LCN access in a variety
of ways (e.g., in bandwidths of 1 Gb, 10 Gb, 40 Gb and in packages)
for different prices. See NYSE Price List dated November 1, 2019,
available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf. The price lists for the other Exchanges reflect
the same fee structure for IP network and LCN access.
    \14\ See Notices, supra note 5, 84 FR at 47593.
    \15\ See id. The other Included Data Products are proprietary
feeds of the Exchanges and its affiliate, NYSE Chicago. Id. A User
that purchases access to the LCN or IP network also receives the
ability to access the trading and execution systems of the
Exchanges, and the trading and execution systems of OTC Global, an
alternative trading system (``ATS''), subject, in each case, to
authorization by the relevant entity. See id. at 47593-47594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to: (i) Offer co-location Users access to the
NMS Network as a new service providing dedicated network access for
Users to connect to the SIAC NMS Feeds at lower latency than is
currently available; \16\ and (ii) establish fees for connections to
the NMS Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchanges state that the NMS Network would not be
available outside of the Data Center. See Notices, supra note 5 at
n. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Access to the NMS Network

    As more fully set forth in the Notices, the Exchanges propose to
make access to the new NMS Network available to co-location Users. The
Exchanges state that the build-out of the NMS Network was approved by
the operating committees for the CTA and CQ Plans, which until recently
had mandated that the SIAC NMS Feeds be accessed via the IP network--a
secure network designed for resiliency and redundancy, but not low
latency.\17\ The NMS Network would offer an alternative option to Users
to connect to the SIAC NMS Feeds in the Data Center with the
anticipated benefit of providing a one-way reduction in latency, as
compared to the IP network and LCN, of over 140 microseconds.\18\ As
proposed, connections to the NMS Network would be available over 10 Gb
and 40 Gb circuits only.\19\ The Exchanges state that access to the NMS
Network as a service available in co-location would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest as required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because
offering access to the dedicated, low-latency NMS Network would provide
Users with an additional option to connect to the SIAC NMS Feeds,
giving them greater choice consistent with the directive of the
operating committees for the CTA/CQ Plans.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notices, supra note 5, 84 FR at 47594. The Exchanges
note that Users connecting to the SIAC NMS Feeds through the LCN go
through the IP network before reaching those feeds, so the LCN
connection to the SIAC NMS Feeds is slower than the IP network
connection. See id. The Exchanges also state that the LCN does not
connect to the IP network for access to the Exchanges' systems or
connectivity to the other Included Data Products. See Notices, supra
note 5 at n. 13.
    \18\ See Notices, supra note 5, 84 FR at 47594.
    \19\ See id. and proposed General Note 5 to price lists. As is
currently the case to connect to the SIAC NMS Feeds via the LCN or
IP networks, connection to the SIAC NMS Feeds via the new NMS
Network would require that a User separately be authorized to
receive those data feeds (i.e., by virtue of separately purchasing
the data feed content). See id. at 47593.
    \20\ See Notices, supra note 5, 84 FR at 47597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Fees for NMS Network Connections

    As more fully set forth in the Notices, the Exchanges propose
associated fees for connectivity to the SIAC NMS Feeds. As proposed, a
User could connect to the SIAC NMS Feeds via the new NMS Network at no
additional charge over and above their current fees if they purchase a
10 Gb or 40 Gb connection to either the IP network or the LCN, subject
to certain limits.\21\ Specifically, the Exchanges' price lists would
be amended to state that if a User purchases access to the LCN or IP
network and requests a connection to the NMS Network, that User and its
Affiliates,\22\ taken together, would not be charged for up to eight
corresponding NMS Network connections (each a ``No Additional Fee NMS
Network Connection''), if such User, together with its Affiliates,
purchases access to the LCN or IP Network and:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 47594-47595.
    \22\ See Notices, supra note 5, at n. 17, noting that
``Affiliate'' of a User is defined in the price list as ``any other
User or Hosted Customer that is under 50% or greater common
ownership or control of the first User;'' that a ``Hosted Customer''
is a customer of a Hosting User that is hosted in a Hosting User's
co-location space; and a ``Hosting User'' is a User of colocation
services that hosts a Hosted Customer in the User's co-location
space. Hosting Users are subject to Hosting fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Designates no more than four No Additional Fee NMS Network
Connections as corresponding to the LCN connections of the User,
together with its Affiliates, on a one-to-one basis;
    (ii) Designates no more than four No Additional Fee NMS Network
Connections as corresponding to the IP network connections of the User,
together with its Affiliates, on a one-to-one basis;
    (iii) Does not use the LCN or IP network connections that
correspond to the No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections to access
the SIAC NMS Feeds; \23\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Users would still have the option to connect to the SIAC
NMS Feeds using their LCN or IP network connections, but they would
be charged the proposed fee for the NMS Network connection, as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) Each of the No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections is of
equal size or smaller than the associated LCN

or IP network connection purchased by it or its Affiliates.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notices supra note 5, 84 FR at 47594. Accordingly, a
User's access to a 1 Gb connection would not entitle a User to a No
Additional Fee NMS Network Connection.

To help implement the limitation on the number of No Additional Fee NMS
Network Connections available to a User together with its Affiliates,
the Exchanges propose that a User must certify whether any other Users
or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. The Exchanges state that this proposed requirement
would avoid disparate treatment of Users that have divided their
various business activities between separate corporate entities, as
compared to Users that operate those business activities within a
single corporate entity. Id. at 47598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the ``No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections,''
the Exchanges propose that an NMS Network Connection could be purchased
separately for a charge (each a ``Charged NMS Connection''), which
typically would apply to Users that (i) would like to purchase access
to the NMS Network and have not purchased a 10 Gb or 40 Gb LCN or IP
network connection; (ii) have purchased an LCN or IP connection but
would like NMS Network connections in excess of permitted number of
corresponding No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections; and/or (iii)
would like to use their LCN and IP connections to continue to access
the SIAC NMS Feeds.\26\ The proposed charge is the same as that
assessed for the same-sized 10 Gb or 40 Gb IP network connection: (i)
$10,000 per connection initial charge and $11,000/month for a 10 Gb
connection; or (ii) $10,000 per connection initial charge and $18,000/
month for a 40 Gb connection.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 47595.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges state that the proposed fee structure is consistent
with Exchange Act requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably
allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act principally because current Users will have an
improved service at no additional cost; the fee structure is
anticipated to be revenue neutral; there are unlikely to be any Users
requiring Charged NMS Connections (and if there are, they would not pay
more than Users must currently pay to access the SIAC NMS Feeds); and
all Users are treated equally.\28\ More specifically, in support of
their justification that the proposed fee structure is reasonable, the
Exchanges acknowledge that the pricing decisions relating to the
dedicated NMS Network are not constrained by competitive market
forces.\29\ The Exchanges provide information on the costs and expected
revenue associated with establishment of the NMS Network: They estimate
the cost to provide the NMS Network to be $3.8 million initially, and
$215,000 annually for ongoing maintenance and operation, with refresh
expenses to be necessary in three to four years; and they estimate no
net revenue gain, assuming revenue from five new Charged NMS
Connections.\30\ In addition, they state that the proposed No
Additional Fee NMS Network Connections would free up bandwidth over
Users' current LCN and IP connections, so that Users may lower the
number of LCN or IP network connections they purchase and a net decline
in revenue is therefore possible.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notices supra note 5, 84 FR at 47597-47600. The
Exchanges state that there are currently 48 Users would benefit from
the No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections and they estimate
hypothetically five new Charged NMS Connections. See Notices supra
note 5, 84 FR at 47595, 47597.
    \29\ See id. at 47596.
    \30\ See id. at 47597.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of their justification that the proposed fee structure
is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory, the Exchanges
emphasize that it has been designed so that the majority of Users would
not have any new or different charges if they connect to the NMS
Network.\32\ They state further, that they believe that none of the
Current Users will have to pay to connect to the NMS Network, so that
the proposed $11,000 and $18,000 monthly recurring charges are
``largely theoretical.'' \33\ They argue that the fee for the Charged
NMS Connections would encourage Users to not subscribe to more NMS
Network connections than needed, which would reduce the burden on the
network infrastructure and result in lower costs to the Exchanges.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 47598-47599.
    \33\ See id. at 47595.
    \34\ See id. at 47598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchanges state that the proposed fee structure
would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because SIAC is
the single plan processor for Tape A and B equity securities and all
options securities, and therefore does not currently compete with any
other provider in delivering these services, and further, all Users are
treated equally.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id. 47599-47600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal from
Nasdaq, a response from the Exchanges, and a second letter from
Nasdaq.\36\ In its original comment letter, Nasdaq observes that the
Exchanges' proposal would permit market participants who separately pay
the Exchanges to connect to their trading venue(s) to receive up to
eight free connections to the faster NMS Network; whereas market
participants who elect a stand-alone connection to the SIAC NMS Feeds
will be charged.\37\ The commenter expresses concern that the proposal
is potentially anti-competitive.\38\ According to the commenter, the
proposed ``commingling'' of pricing for NMS Network connectivity with
connectivity to the NYSE venues, including access to NYSE proprietary
data feeds, creates a burden on inter-market competition, and also
hinders potential providers from competing to serve as network
processor in place of SIAC.\39\ Nasdaq states that the proposals'
failure to offer market participants the opportunity to subscribe to
only one or two of the SIAC NMS Feeds at a lower cost also hinders
competition.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Nasdaq Letter, NYSE Response Letter, and Second Nasdaq
Letter, supra note 7.
    \37\ See Nasdaq Letter at 1.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id. at 1-2.
    \40\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Nasdaq Letter, the Exchanges emphasize that
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act requires that the rules of an exchange not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the Exchange Act.\41\ They argue that NYSE sought and
received approval from both the CTA Operating Committee and OPRA
Management Committee (both of which include Nasdaq as a member).\42\
They emphasize that the NMS Network would be offered at no additional
cost to current Users, that the proposals would promote the protection
of investors and the public interest, and that these considerations
outweigh any purported concerns raised by Nasdaq that the proposal may
be anti-competitive.\43\ The Exchanges further counter Nasdaq's
arguments, stating that: (i) Inter-market competition as contemplated
by the Exchange Act does not extend to exclusive SIPs because

these entities, by definition, do not offer their services in
competition with other exclusive SIPs at the same time; \44\ (ii) any
suggestion that access to the NMS Network is contingent on a User
purchasing a connection to one or more of the Exchanges' trading venues
is incorrect because Users may purchase a stand-alone NMS Network
connection; \45\ (iii) there is competition for connectivity to the
SIAC NMS Feeds in the Data Center, as Hosting Users could purchase NMS
Network connections and then re-sell connectivity to the SIAC NMS Feeds
to their Hosted Customers at fee discounts; \46\ and (iv) the only way
to address Nasdaq's concerns about competition would be to increase
fees, which they state would be ``a perverse result that benefits
neither investors nor the public.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See NYSE Response Letter at 3.
    \42\ See NYSE Response Letter at 2-3. The Exchanges further note
that Nasdaq, in its role as a member of the CTA Operating Committee
and OPRA Management Committee, did not raise objections to the
NYSE's proposal to fund and enhance SIAC performance. Id. at n. 6.
    \43\ Id. at 3-4.
    \44\ Id. at 4. On that point, NYSE also states, ``the benefit of
providing enhancements to the SIP at no additional cost to Users
that already connect to the NMS Feeds outweighs any concerns about
how an alternate bidder would make its commercial decision to
replace the SIP, and specifically how it would charge for
connectivity. Id. at 7.
    \45\ Id. at 5.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id. at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchanges analogize to how Nasdaq charges for
connectivity to the Nasdaq UTP SIP Feed, noting that Nasdaq provides
two free ports and then charges nominal fees for connectivity to a
third-party network for access to the UTP SIP Feed.\48\ The Exchanges
state that they similarly propose to leverage the fees they charge to
connect to their own venues in order to keep costs down for providing
connectivity to the SIP.\49\ They state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Exchanges refer to SR-Nasdaq-2016-120, in which Nasdaq
proposed to unbundle Nasdaq exchange and Nasdaq SIP connectivity
fees and establish the ``Third Party Connectivity Service.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78713 (August 29, 2016), 81 FR
60768 (September 2, 2016). Following negative comment, Nasdaq
ultimately amended its proposal, and the Commission approved
Nasdaq's proposal to provide every customer two third-party circuit
connections free of charge if used solely to receive the Nasdaq UTP
SIP feeds and provide UTP-only connectivity beyond the two free
connections for nominal fees (an installation fee of $100 per
connection and an ongoing monthly fee of $100 per connection). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80558 (April 28, 2017), 82 FR
20923 (May 4, 2017).
    \49\ Id. at 6.

    Similar to Nasdaq's structure, the proposed NMS [N]etwork
provides connectivity only to SIP data. But unlike Nasdaq, NYSE is
not proposing that current Users receiving [SIAC] NMS Feeds must use
the NMS [N]etwork. The [SIAC] NMS Feeds will continue to be
available over existing connections and the NYSE Exchanges are not
proposing any changes to those fees. The sole purpose of the NMS
Network Filings is to establish the basis for connecting to the
[SIAC] NMS Feeds via the standalone, high-performance network that
the industry and the Operating Committee and its advisors
demanded.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Exchanges, keeping costs low for data recipients
should be the prevailing principle and if an exchange that also
operates a SIP can achieve this goal by leveraging the existing fees it
charges for connectivity to its exchanges, that benefits SIP data
recipients.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its second letter, Nasdaq states its general support for the
proposed NMS Network, but reiterates its view that NYSE's proposed fee
structure threatens competitors from bidding to replace SIAC as the
SIP, and its belief that this is an impermissible burden on
competition.\52\ Nasdaq urges that such burden could be overcome if,
for example, NYSE were to separate the pricing for NMS Network
Connectivity from the pricing for NYSE connectivity, including access
to the proprietary data feeds; price each NMS Feed connection
separately and allow market participants the opportunity to acquire any
of the NMS Network Connections separately; and/or separate the OPRA NMS
Feed from the CTA/CQ NMS Feeds.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Second Nasdaq Letter supra note 7 at 1-2.
    \53\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \54\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule changes to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\55\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule changes'
consistency with the Act, and particularly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national
market system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers,'' \57\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges propose to offer co-location Users connectivity to
the SIAC NMS Feeds via the new NMS Network, a dedicated network that is
anticipated to reduce one-way latency relative to the IP network and
LCN by over 140 microseconds. As discussed above, the Exchanges propose
to make the NMS Network available at no additional charge to Users that
satisfy certain conditions (those that, together with their Affiliates,
purchase up to four LCN and four IP network connections in 10 Gb or 40
Gb sizes and do not use the LCN and IP network connections to access
the SIAC NMS Feeds), and impose a substantial charge on Users that seek
access to the NMS Network that do not meet these conditions. The
Commission believes additional data and information is necessary to
assess the Exchanges' arguments that the proposed NMS Network fee
structure is consistent with the Exchange Act's requirements that fees
be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    More specifically, it is not clear from the information provided
why the proposed fee for a Charged NMS Connection ($10,000 initially
and $11,000 or $18,000 monthly for a 10 Gb or 40 Gb connection,
respectively) is reasonable. Although the Exchanges urge that there
will be few, if any, Charged NMS Connections, it is not clear why the
level of the proposed fee for a Charged NMS Connection is reasonable
for Users that do not meet the proposed conditions for receiving a No
Additional Fee NMS Network Connection (e.g., why the proposed fee

for a Charged NMS Connection would defray expenses or why it is
otherwise reasonably related to the cost to provide access to the NMS
Network).
    In addition, it is not clear from the information provided why it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for those Users that
purchase access to the IP network or LCN on the proposed conditions to
receive connections to the NMS Network at no additional charge, whereas
other Users (e.g., those seeking connections to the NMS Network that do
not satisfy the proposed conditions, or those who do not otherwise
require access to the LCN or IP network) would be required to pay
$10,000 initially and $11,000 or $18,000 monthly for a 10 Gb or 40 Gb
connection, respectively. In particular, it is unclear the basis on
which the Exchanges have determined the proposed conditions for making
available a No Additional Fee NMS Network Connection, and whether that
basis is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as
required by the Exchange Act.
    Further, the Commission solicits additional comment on whether the
Exchanges' proposed fee structure for the NMS Network would impose a
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposals are
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4),\59\ 6(b)(5),\60\ 6(b)(8) \61\ or any
other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4 under the Act,\62\ any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \62\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \63\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposals should be approved or
disapproved by January 3, 2020. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
January 17, 2020. 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19, SR-NYSEArca-2019-61,
SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Numbers SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-
NYSENAT-2019-19, SR-NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Numbers SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19, SR-
NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34 and should be submitted on or
before January 3, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26846 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51636-51639]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60755; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Amending NYSE Rule 103B to: (1) Codify the Exchange's Existing Practice
That Renders Designated Market Marker Units Ineligible To Interview for
Securities That Are Directly Related to the Performance or Credit of
Any of the DMM's Affiliated Entities; (2) Define ``Related Security''
for Purposes of NYSE Rule 103B; (3) Provide That all Related Securities
Listed Under Section 703.19 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual
Will Be Automatically Assigned to the Designated Market Maker Unit; (4)
Define Repackaged Security for Purposes of NYSE Rule 103B, and Provide
That Repackaged Securities are Allocated Through the Allocation Process
Pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B

September 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 25, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 103B (``Security
Allocation and Reallocation'') to: (1) Codify the Exchange's existing
practice that renders Designated Market Marker (``DMM'') units
ineligible to interview for securities that are directly related to the
performance or credit of any of the DMM's affiliated entities; (2)
define ``related security'' (``Related Security'') for purposes of NYSE
Rule 103B; (3) provide that all Related Securities listed under Section
703.19 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual will be automatically
assigned to the Designated Market Maker unit (``DMM unit'') that is
assigned the related equity security unless the issuer affirmatively
requests the Related Security be allocated pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B,
Section III; (4) define repackaged security (``Repackaged Security''),
for purposes of NYSE Rule 103B, and provide that Repackaged Securities
are allocated through the allocation process pursuant to NYSE Rule
103B, Section III; and (5) include inadvertently omitted rule text as
well as make conforming changes to the rule text. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'') proposes
to amend NYSE Rule 103B (``Security Allocation and Reallocation'') to:
(1) Codify the Exchange's existing practice that renders Designated
Market Maker (``DMM'') units ineligible to interview for securities
that are directly related to the performance or credit of any of its
affiliated entities; (2) define ``Related Security'' for purposes of
NYSE Rule 103B; (3) provide that all Related Securities listed under
Section 703.19 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (``Manual'')
will be automatically assigned to the DMM unit that is assigned the
related equity security unless the issuer affirmatively requests the
Related Security be allocated pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B, Section III;
(4) define ``Repackaged Security,'' for purposes of NYSE Rule 103B, and
provide that Repackaged Securities are allocated through the allocation
process pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B, Section III; and (5) include
inadvertently omitted rule text as well as make conforming changes to
the rule text.
I. Background
A. Listing of ``Other Securities''
    Section 703.19 of the Manual (``Other Securities'') is the listing
standard pursuant to which the NYSE lists any securities that do not
qualify for listing under any of the standards specific to securities
of a particular class. The general categories of securities that are
currently listed under Section 703.19 are: (1) Capital securities; (2)
retail debt securities; (3) mandatory convertible securities; and (4)
Repackaged Securities. These securities may be issued by listed
companies and their affiliated entities as well as qualified non-listed
companies and their affiliated entities.
    Capital securities are hybrid securities with characteristics of
both debt and preferred stock. Generally, these securities pay regular
dividend or interest payments and have very long maturities or are
perpetual in nature. Capital securities may be issued directly by the
listed company or a subsidiary thereof, or by a trust which holds debt
of the company or its subsidiary, such as trust preferred securities.
    Mandatory convertible securities are hybrid securities that entitle
the holder to periodic payments on the amount invested until a
specified conversion date, at which time the security converts into
shares of the listed company according to a disclosed formula.
Mandatory convertibles typically mature in 3-5 years.
    Retail debt securities are corporate debt securities that are
assigned to a DMM unit for trading (as opposed to trading on NYSE
Bonds), typically with face amounts of $50, $25 or $10. Retail debt
securities pay a fixed rate of interest and typically have long
maturity dates of 30+ years.
    Repackaged Securities are issued by a special purpose entity which
is established for the purpose of issuing such securities and using the
proceeds to purchase debt or preferred equity securities. Repackaged
Securities represent an undivided beneficial interest in the debt or
preferred equity securities held by the special purpose entity. These
securities also pay interest (either fixed or floating) and typically
have long maturity dates of 30+ years.
B. Assignment of ``Other Securities'' to DMM Units
    NYSE Rule 103B governs the allocation of securities to a qualified
DMM unit when: (1) A security is to be initially listed on the
Exchange; and (2) a security previously assigned to a DMM member
organization must be re-assigned.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Rule 103B, Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allocation of securities that are related to initially listed
securities is governed by NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI, entitled ``Policy
Notes.'' Pursuant to the provisions of the rule, the issuer may choose
whether to have its related security \5\ assigned to the DMM unit
responsible for trading its listed equity security or referred for
allocation through the formal allocation process and then must advise
the Exchange of that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI, currently does not provide a
definition of the term ``related security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, warrants on the Exchange are automatically assigned to
the DMM unit trading the underlying security unless the listed company
specifically requests the warrant be referred for allocation through
the formal allocation process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI(A)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the method of allocation, current NYSE practice
restricts DMM units from interviewing to be the assigned DMM unit or
being allocated a security that is directly related to the performance
or credit of any of its affiliated entities. DMMs units are not,
however, restricted from interviewing to be the assigned DMM unit or
being allocated a Repackaged Security issued by an affiliated entity
because such products have no direct relation to the performance or
credit of the issuing entity. However, if that Repackaged Security is
based on an underlying debt security of an affiliated entity of the DMM
unit, the DMM unit will be precluded from interviewing to be the
assigned DMM unit or being allocated the Repackaged Security based on
the underlying debt security of the affiliated entity of such DMM unit.
Neither practice is currently codified in NYSE Rules.

II. Proposed Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to clarify and streamline the allocation
process for securities listed under Section 703.19 of the Manual.
Specifically, the Exchange seeks to include a definition of ``Related
Security'' in proposed NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI(A)(2) and to set
forth allocation procedures for Related Securities. For purposes of
this rule, the term ``Related Security'' shall be defined as: (i) Any
security listed on the Exchange issued by a company whose common equity
securities are listed on the Exchange, other than such common equity
securities; and (ii) any security listed on the Exchange by any issuer
affiliated with a company whose common equity securities are listed on
the Exchange. Related Securities of either a listed company whose
common equity securities are listed on the Exchange or of an affiliated
entity of such listed company include, but are not limited to,
securities listed under NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 703.19
(except for Repackaged Securities).
    The Exchange further proposes to amend Section VI of NYSE Rule 103B
to have Related Securities allocated in the same manner as warrants
listed on the Exchange. Pursuant to proposed Section VI(A)(6) of NYSE
Rule 103B, the Exchange will automatically assign the Related Security
to the DMM unit that trades the related equity security unless the
issuer or affiliated entity affirmatively requests to have the Related
Security assigned to a DMM unit through the formal allocation process
as set forth in NYSE Rule 103B, Section III. The current rule which
requires issuers to make a determination in this regard, places an
unnecessary burden on issuers of Related Securities because an issuer
may create and list multiple Related Securities throughout the year.
The need for the issuer to advise the Exchange of its determination
creates potential time delay in the allocation and trading of Related
Securities on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
process will alleviate this burden and time delay.
    Further, pursuant to proposed Section VI(A)(7) of NYSE Rule 103B,
if an issuer or any affiliated entity does not have an equity security
listed on the Exchange, but does have a security listed on the Exchange
that was approved for original listing under Section 703.19 of the
Manual (except for a Repackaged Security), the Exchange will
automatically assign any security subsequently listed under Section
703.19 (except for a Repackaged Security) of that issuer or affiliated
entity to the DMM unit trading the previously listed security, unless
the issuer or affiliated entity affirmatively requests to have any such
subsequently listed security assigned to a DMM unit through the formal
allocation process as set forth in NYSE Rule 103B, Section III.
    To further alleviate burdens on the issuer related to the
allocation of Related Securities, the Exchange proposes to amend
Section VI(A)(4) of NYSE Rule 103B to provide that DMM units that are
ineligible to receive a new allocation due to their failure to meet the
requirements of Rule 103B, Section II(D) and (E) will remain eligible
to receive the securities of a spin-off company and of Related
Securities and Repackaged Securities where the DMM unit trades the
related common equity security. The Exchange believes that this is
appropriate because re-assigning the Related Securities of an equity
security currently being traded by the DMM unit is disadvantageous and
burdensome to the issuer that has already established a relationship
with the DMM unit. The Exchange believes that most issuers prefer to
have one point of contact to obtain information about the trading
activity in the issuer's securities. Assignment of a Related Security
to another DMM unit increases the administrative burdens on the issuer
in obtaining trading information related to its securities. If the
issuer chooses, it still may request to have the Related Security
assigned to a DMM unit through the formal allocation process as set
forth in NYSE Rule 103B, Section III.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to codify in Section II
(``Eligibility for Allocation'') of NYSE Rule 103B, subparagraph (K),
its existing practice of prohibiting a DMM unit from interviewing to be
the assigned DMM unit or being allocated a security that is directly
related to the performance or credit of any of its affiliated entities.
The Exchange will not, however, prohibit a DMM unit from acting as the
DMM unit for Repackaged Securities issued by an affiliated entity that
bear no direct relation to the performance or credit of the issuing
entity or any other affiliate of the DMM unit.
    Example #1: Bank A is the parent company of DMM unit Y.
    Bank A creates a Repackaged Security representing interests in an
underlying debt security of XYZ Company that is not related to Bank A
or DMM unit Y. DMM unit Y will not be precluded from interviewing to be
the assigned DMM unit or being allocated the Repackaged Security based
on the underlying debt security of XYZ Company.
    Example #2: However, assuming the same scenario above, Bank N,
which is not affiliated with Bank A or DMM unit Y, creates a Repackaged
Security based on an underlying debt security of Bank A. DMM unit Y
will be precluded from interviewing to be the assigned DMM unit or
being allocated the Repackaged Security created by Bank N based on the
underlying debt security of Bank A.
    In Example 1, DMM unit Y will not be precluded from
interviewing to be the assigned DMM unit or being allocated the
Repackaged Security based on the underlying debt security of XYZ
Company because that Repackaged Security bears no direct relation to
the performance or credit of Bank A. The Exchange notes that the
Repackaged Security will be fully funded at the time of creation and
the issuer of the Repackaged Security is not reliant on the continued
solvency of Bank A to be able to comply with all of its obligations to
the holders of the Repackaged Securities.
    In Example 2, DMM unit Y will be precluded from
interviewing to be the assigned DMM unit or being allocated to trade
the Repackaged Security because that Repackaged Security was created
based on an underlying debt security of Bank A and therefore has a
direct relation to the credit and performance of Bank A.
    The Exchange also seeks to amend NYSE Rule 103B to include
inadvertently omitted rule text. Specifically, Section VI(A) governs
spin-offs, listing of related companies and listing of related
securities. However, the words ``related security'' are inadvertently
omitted from the actual text of the rule. Through this filing, the
Exchange seeks to correct this oversight and include the words
``related security'' in the body of NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI(A).
Finally, the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule 103B, Section VI(2)
regarding allocation of warrants. In order to keep the language
consistent through this section, the Exchange proposes to replace the
word ``traded' with the word ``listed.''
III. Conclusion
    The Exchange submits that the amendments proposed herein are
reasonable and necessary to clarify the operation of NYSE Rule 103B and
streamline the allocation process.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5),\7\ which requires

that an exchange have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendments are consistent with these objectives because
the changes will alleviate impediments in the administrative process of
assigning Related Securities to DMM units which ultimately facilitates
the fair and orderly trading in those securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change 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) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19-b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
\10\ normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date
of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay \12\ is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will permit the Exchange to avoid any continuing confusion regarding
the application of NYSE Rule 103B, as well as immediately allow a
Related Security to be assigned to the DMM unit that is assigned the
related equity security, unless the issuer affirmatively requests the
Related Security to be allocated pursuant to NYSE Rule 103B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-99 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-NYSE-2009-99. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2009-99 and should be submitted on
or before October 28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24085 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4125]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-173-000]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

January 18, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 10, 2006, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing a refund report detailing GTN's
refund of interruptible transportation revenues on its Coyote Springs
Lateral, in compliance with section 35A of the general terms &
conditions of GTN's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1-A.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time January 25, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-831 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21082-21084]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0315; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG Model G 115E airplanes. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as incorrect cable routing causing electrical
shorting behind the left-hand (LH) cockpit instrument panel. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Grob Aircraft AG, Customer Service, Lettenbachstrasse 9, 86874
Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-998-105; fax;
+ 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: grob-aircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0315;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-006-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2013-0017, dated January 17, 2013 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported of finding an electrical shorting of
main cable loom behind the left-hand (LH) instrument panel of some
Grob G115E aeroplanes. In one case, the main cable loom arcing
caused an Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator failure. During
the fleet checks, additional cases of main cable loom routing and
consequent rubbing with Omni Bearing Selector behind the cockpit
instrument panel were identified, while the cable routing was not in
conformity with the approved type design.
    The investigation results concluded that the instrument panels
of affected aeroplanes were removed and subsequently re-installed,
in service, during embodiment of various optional modifications.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
smoke in the cockpit and/or functional loss of navigation equipment
and instruments.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Grob Aircraft AG
published Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) MSB1078-191/1, providing
instructions to inspect and correct the cable routing behind the
cockpit instrument panel.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires accomplishment
of a one- time inspection to verify correct cable routing behind the
LH cockpit instrument panel and, depending on findings, correction
and replacement of damaged parts.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    GROB-WERKE has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-191/1, dated
January 15, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 0 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $0 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $100, for a cost of
$780 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

GROB-WERKE: Docket No. FAA-2013-0315; Directorate Identifier 2013-
CE-006-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 24, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GROB-WERKE Model G 115E airplanes, serial
numbers 82086/E through 82184/E, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 31: Instruments.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect cable
routing causing electrical shorting behind the left-hand (LH)
cockpit instrument panel. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect
and correct incorrect cable routing, which could result in smoke in
the cockpit and/or functional loss of navigation equipment and
instruments.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the main
cable routing behind the LH instrument panel following the
Accomplishment Instructions section of GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078-191/1, dated January 15, 2013.
    (2) If incorrect cable loom routing is detected during the
inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, correct the cable loom routing following the Accomplishment
Instructions section of GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-
191/1, dated January 15, 2013.
    (3) If damaged (by fretting or burns) cables or instruments are
detected during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the damaged cables or
instruments, as applicable, with serviceable parts following the
Accomplishment Instructions section of GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078-191/1, dated January 15, 2013.

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

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required in
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD if already done
before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment
Instructions section of GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-
191, dated December 6, 2012.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0017, dated January 17, 2013; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. MSB1078-191/1, dated January 15, 2013; and GROB Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. MSB1078-191, dated December 6, 2012, for related
information. For service information related to this AD, contact
Grob

Aircraft AG, Customer Service, Lettenbachstrasse 9, 86874
Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-998-105;
fax; + 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: grob-aircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 2, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08188 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P