[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35624-35627]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0551; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-202-AD;
Amendment 39-16333; AD 2010-13-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark
500 and 600 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

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

    A Fokker 50 operator reported an overextended MLG [main landing
gear] sliding member after landing. During subsequent investigation
it was found that an end stop had unscrewed itself to a certain
extent. This caused the MLG torque links to move into an overcentre
position against the MLG sliding member. Investigation learned that
there was no lockwiring present on the two lockbolts, which hold the
end stop. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
damage of the main gear and loss of control of the aeroplanes during
the landing roll.

    This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 8, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 8, 2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 9, 2010.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0145, dated July 31, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A Fokker 50 operator reported an overextended MLG [main landing
gear] sliding member after landing. During subsequent investigation
it was found that an end stop had unscrewed itself to a certain
extent. This caused the MLG torque links to move into an overcentre
position against the MLG sliding member. Investigation learned that
there was no lockwiring present on the two lockbolts, which hold the
end stop. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
damage of the main gear and loss of control of the aeroplanes during
the landing roll.
    EASA issued AD 2009-0018 to address this unsafe condition [on
Model Mark 050, Mark 0502 and Mark 0604 airplanes]. Earlier F27 Mark
500 and 600 `RFV' aeroplanes are equipped with similar design MLG
units.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
[general visual] inspections for the presence and proper application
of lockwiring on the two lockbolts which hold the sliding member end
stop, and corrective action, depending on findings.

    Required actions include repetitive measurements of the length of
the extended portion of the MLG sliding member, and corrective actions
including repetitively inspecting the lockwiring on the two sliding
member end stop lock bolts for missing or damaged lockwiring, and
installing lockwiring, as applicable. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172,
dated January 26, 2009. Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172, dated
January 26, 2009, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 32-91W,
dated September 8, 2008, as an additional source of guidance for
accomplishment of the actions required by this AD. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

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

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

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

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0551; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-202-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-13-02 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-16333. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0551; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-202-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 8,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 500
and 600 airplanes; certified in any category; having serial numbers
(S/Ns) 10452, 10525,10530, 10531, 10550, 10557, 10559, 10566, 10569,
10589, 10603, 10605, 10606, 10613, 10615, 10623 through 10631
inclusive, 10633, 10637, 10639, 10641, 10642, 10669, and 10672.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A Fokker 50 operator reported an overextended MLG [main landing
gear] sliding member after landing. During subsequent investigation
it was found that an end stop had unscrewed itself to a certain
extent. This caused the MLG torque links to move into an overcentre
position against the MLG sliding member. Investigation learned that
there was no lockwiring present on the two lockbolts, which hold the
end stop. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to structural
damage of the main gear and loss of control of the aeroplanes during
the landing roll.

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, measure the length of the extended portion of the sliding member
of the main landing gear (MLG), in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172,
dated January 26, 2009. Repeat the measurement at intervals not to
exceed 500 flight cycles until lockwiring is installed in accordance
with Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172, dated January 26, 2009, or
the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD have been completed.
    (h) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD, perform a general visual inspection for the
presence of lockwiring and damage to lockwiring on the two sliding
member end stop lock bolts of the MLG, in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-
172, dated January 26, 2009. If lockwiring is missing or damaged,
install lockwiring before further flight, in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin F27/32-172, dated January 26, 2009.
    (1) If, during any measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, overextension is found, or the measurement has increased by 1.0
millimeter (mm) or more compared to the previous measurement,
inspect before further flight.
    (2) If during any measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, no overextension is found and the measurement has not increased
by 1.0 mm or more compared to the previous measurement, inspect
within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 1:  Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172, dated January 26,
2009, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 32-91W, dated
September 8, 2008, as an additional source of guidance.

    (i) If, during any measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, overextension is found or the measurement has increased by 1.0
mm or more compared to the previous measurement; or if, during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, lockwiring is not
present or is not installed correctly; submit a report to Fokker
Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252-627-211; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com; at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. The report must
include any finding of overextension or incorrect or missing
lockwiring.
    (1) If the inspection or measurement was done on or after the
effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after
the inspection or measurement was accomplished, as applicable.
    (2) If the inspection or measurement was accomplished prior to
the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD.
    (j) If lockwiring is installed in accordance with paragraph (h)
of this AD, or if no discrepancies are found during the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, the repetitive
measurement required by paragraph (g) of this AD is no longer
required by this AD.
    (k) As of the effective date of this AD: No person may install a
MLG on any airplane unless Part 2 of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-
172, dated January 26, 2009, has been accomplished for that part.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0145, dated July 31, 2009; and Fokker Service
Bulletin F27/32-172, dated January 26, 2009; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-172, dated
January 26, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For Fokker service information identified in this AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box
231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-
627-350; fax +31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Messier-Dowty service information
identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services
Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling,
Virginia 20166-8910; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 10, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14783 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UN~ TED STATES ENVIRONME~~ TAL PROTEGT~ ON AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFIGE OF AIR AND RnoMTlON Dr. H. Gregor Rigo, President H G Rig0 & Associates, Inc, Columbia Road Is, OH 44138 2206 Dear Dr. Rigo:

Thank you for your letter dated December 28,2001. In your letter, you conclude that the wtitation ( PLQ) for Method 23, the Environmental Protection Agency's test method for measuring polychlorinated dibenzodioxins ( PCDD's) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans ( PCDF's), is higher than the emission limits for PCDD's and the various regdations limiting the emission of these compounds itom municipal Again, according to your letter, this is important because the EPA's Method " that under the current regulatory scheme, test results can only be used for they are above the practical quantification limit."

While I share your concern about measurement uncertainty, there is no requirement in any other EPA compliance test method to establish a PLQ or to prohibit the use ata that fall below the PLQ. The procedure in Method 301 for determiping the eled as an " optional" procedure and not a required one, as proposed in the Federal Register on June 13,1991 In the Preamble to the final rulemaking for Method 301,, we responded to several comments suggesting the EPA revise the proposed method to include specific procedures to defrne the meas comments noted that Method 301 re level of the pollutant in the waste s limit or require the tester to estabIi 301 " provided' cedures for dete I t range of the method. EPA's ester to validate measurement methods at the t declined to set an absolute lower measurement it. Our response also pointed out that Method g a limit of quantitation and that it ` advocated" the use to help defrne a method's measurement range. It did not choose to make I regret any confusion that this may have caused and appreciate the oppo irements of Method 301.

Although Metbod 301 does not require that a tester determine the PLQ of a method, it does have limits on the allowabie precision for a compliance test method. As defined in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, the precision of a method is unacceptable if the relative standard deviation is equal to or greater than 50%. Based on your analysis and that of the American Society of Mechanical ,

h Committee on Reference Method Accuracy and Precision, the relative n ofMethod 23 was always less than 50% over the entire range of emission Internet A& ress ( URL) http: l/ www epagov Rffiycle& RecycbWe Prtnled with Vegetable OII Based inks on Recycled Peper ( Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

~


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18481]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0157]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
regulation governing the operation of the US 90 (Danzinger) vertical
lift span drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile
3.10 at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is
necessary to install monitoring devices on the gearbox that operates
the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to
navigation for 24 hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on, April 6, 2013, until
6 a.m. on, April 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0157] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Kay Wade, Bridge Branch Office,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development has requested a temporary deviation from the operating
schedule for the Vertical Lift Span Bridge across the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal, mile 3.10 at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana.
The bridge has a vertical clearance of 50 feet above mean high water,
elevation 5.0 feet Mean Sea Level in the closed-to-navigation position.
Vessels requiring a clearance of less than 50 feet may transit beneath
the bridge during operations.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.458(b), the bridge currently opens on
signal for the passage of vessels; except that, from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m.
the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given,
and the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 5
p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain closed to navigation from 6 a.m. on Saturday, April 6,
2013, until 6 a.m. on Sunday, April 7, 2013. At all other times, the
bridge will open on signal for the passage of vessels in accordance
with 33 CFR 117.458(b).
    The closure is necessary in order to install strain gauges and
monitoring devices on the bridge's gearbox and associated shafting to
get readings. This work is essential for the continued operation of the
bridge. Notices will be published in the Eighth Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via the Coast Guard
Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
    Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with and without
tows, commercial vessels, and recreational craft, including sailboats.
Coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users determined
that there should not be any significant effects on these vessels. The
bridge will be unable to open during these repairs; however, an
alternate route is available via the Rigolets or Chef Menteur Pass.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 14, 2013.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-07084 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3506-3507]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61343; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending
Commentary .01 to Rule 903G

January 13, 2010.
    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 December 23, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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 Commentary .01 to Rule 903G in order
to extend until August 31, 2010, the current pilot period regarding the
minimum value size for opening a FLEX Equity Option transaction
(``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change is attached
as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is available on
the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's
principal office 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 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 Pilot Program provides for an initial series opening
transaction size to be 150 contracts (or $1 million in underlying
value, whichever is less).\4\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
reduction of the minimum value size for opening a series provides FLEX
participating members and their customers with greater flexibility in
structuring the terms of FLEX Equity Options to better suit the FLEX
traders' particular needs. Prior to the initiation of the Pilot
Program, the minimum opening transaction value size in the case of FLEX
Equity Options series was the lesser of (i) 250 contracts or (ii) the
number of contracts overlying $1 million in the underlying series.\5\
The Pilot Program modifies the minimum opening size formula by reducing
the ``250 contracts'' component to ``150 contracts'' (the $1 million
underlying value component continues to apply unchanged).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58037 (June 26,
2008), 73 FR 38008 (July 2, 2008).
    \5\ Under this formula, an opening transaction in a FLEX Equity
series in a stock priced at $40 or more would reach the $1 million
limit before it would reach the contract size limit, i.e., 250
contracts times the multiplier (100) times the stock price ($40)
equals $1 million in underlying value. For a FLEX Equity series in a
stock priced at less than $40, the 250 contract size limit applies.
    \6\ Under this proposed formula, an opening transaction in a
FLEX Equity series in a stock priced at approximately $66.67 or more
would reach the $1 million limit before it would reach the contract
size limit, i.e., 150 contracts times the multiplier (100) times the
stock price ($66.67) equals just over $1 million in underlying
value. For a FLEX Equity series in a stock priced at less than
$66.67, the 150 contract size limit would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Program expired on December 19, 2009. The purpose of this
proposed rule change is to extend the pilot period that applies to the
minimum value size for an opening Flex Equity Options transaction until
August 31, 2010. This is merely an extension. The Exchange is not
seeking any other changes to the Pilot Program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has stated that it
will provide the Commission with an updated report 45 days before
any request to extend or make permanent the current pilot program
regarding the minimum value size for opening a FLEX Equity Option
transaction. See E-mail from Andrew Stevens, Chief Counsel, U.S.
Equities and Derivatives, NYSE Amex, to Jennifer Colihan, Special
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated January
13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed rule change, the Exchange is submitting
to the commission [sic] a Pilot Program report (the ``Report'')
detailing the Exchange's experience with the Pilot Program.
Specifically, the Report contains (i) data and analysis on the open
interest and trading volume in FLEX Equity Options for which series
were opened with a minimum opening size of 150 to 249 contracts with
less than $1 million in underlying value; and (ii) analysis on the
types of investors that initiated opening FLEX Equity Options
transactions (i.e., institutional, high net worth or retail, if any).
The Exchange is submitting the Report under separate cover and seeking
confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act.
    The Exchange believes that maintaining the minimum opening
transaction value size broadens the base of institutional investors
that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading

and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the
over-the-counter market for customized options which can take on
contract characteristics similar to FLEX Options but for which similar
opening size restriction do not apply. The Exchange believes that
market participants benefit from being able to trade these customized
options in an exchange environment in several ways, including, but not
limited to, enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
positions; increased market transparency; and heightened contra-party
creditworthiness due to the role of The Options Clearing Corporation as
issuer and guarantor of FLEX Equity Options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that reducing the minimum value
sizes for certain opening transactions in FLEX Equity Options series
thereby providing FLEX participating members and their customers
greater flexibility to trade FLEX Equity Options will benefit the
marketplace and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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

    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 foregoing rule 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 \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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 the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that the original pilot program was published for
notice and comment and no comments were received.\13\ In addition,
extending the pilot through August 31, 2010 does not raise any new or
novel regulatory issues that were not previously considered in
approving the original pilot. Based on the above, the Commission
designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 4.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, 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-NYSEAmex-2009-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-94. 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 the 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-NYSEAmex-2009-94 and should be submitted
on or before February 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1017 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15163-15166]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05856]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71696; File No. SR-BX-2014-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

March 12, 2014.
    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 March 4, 2014, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``BX
Options Market--Fees and Rebates.'' Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to amend Routing Fees. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Chapter
XV, Section

2(3) to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange to route orders to away
markets.
    Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.95 per contract
Routing Fee to any options exchange. The Customer \3\ Routing Fee for
option orders routed to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') and The NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM'') is a $0.05 per contract Fixed Fee in
addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. The Customer Routing
Fee for option orders routed to all other options exchanges \4\
(excluding PHLX and NOM) is a fixed fee of $0.20 per contract (``Fixed
Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. If the away
market pays a rebate, the Routing Fee is $0.00 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \4\ Including BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''),
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') and Topaz Exchange,
LLC (``Gemini'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it
utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''),\5\ a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router.\6\ Each time NOS
routes an order to an away market, NOS is charged a clearing fee \7\
and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also
charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange currently recoups clearing and transaction
charges incurred by the Exchange as well as certain other costs
incurred by the Exchange when routing to away markets, such as
administrative and technical costs associated with operating NOS,
membership fees at away markets, Options Regulatory Fees (``ORFs''),
staffing and technical costs associated with routing options. The
Exchange assesses the actual away market fee at the time that the order
was entered into the Exchange's trading system. This transaction fee is
calculated on an order-by-order basis since different away markets
charge different amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to utilize Nasdaq
Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') for outbound order routing. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71420 (January 28, 2014), 79 FR
6256 (February 3, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-004). This filing has not yet
been implemented. The Exchange intends to implement this filing in
mid-March 2014.
    \6\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order Routing).
    \7\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') assesses $0.01
per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to assess market participants routing
Customer orders to PHLX and NOM a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee in
addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. Today the Exchange
assesses a $0.05 per contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual
transaction fee assessed with respect to Customer orders routed to PHLX
and NOM. The Exchange would increase the Fixed Fee for Customer orders
routed to PHLX and NOM from $0.05 to $0.10 per contract to recoup an
additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing
these orders.
    Similarly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the Customer Routing
Fee assessed when routing to all other options exchanges, if the away
market pays a rebate, from a $0.00 to a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee,
in order to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the
Exchange for routing these orders. The Exchange does not assess the
actual transaction fee assessed by the away market, rather the Exchange
only assesses the Fixed Fee, because the Exchange would continue to
retain the rebate to offset the cost to route orders to these away
markets. Today, the Exchange incurs certain costs when routing to away
markets that pay rebates. The Exchange desires to recoup additional
costs at this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that its proposal to amend its fees is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which BX operates or controls, and is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders
routed to PHLX and NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per contract,
in addition to the actual transaction fee, is reasonable because the
Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs
when routing Customer orders to PHLX and NOM. Today, the Exchange
assesses orders routed to PHLX and NOM a lower Fixed Fee for routing
Customer orders as compared to the Fixed Fee assessed to other options
exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Fixed Fee to
recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection
with routing these orders on behalf of its members.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to
route Customer orders to PHLX and NOM, as compared to other options
exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage certain
infrastructure to offer those markets lower fees as explained further
below. Similarly, the Exchange believes that amending the Customer
Routing Fee to other away markets, other than PHLX and NOM, in the
instance the away market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to
$0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is
reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion
of the cost it incurs when routing orders to these away markets. The
Fixed Fee for Customer orders is an approximation of the costs the
Exchange will be charged for routing orders to away markets. As a
general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for
Customer orders routed to markets which pay a rebate would allow it to
recoup and cover a portion of the costs of providing optional routing
services for Customer orders because it better approximates the costs
incurred by the Exchange for routing such orders. While each
destination market's transaction charge varies and there is a cost
incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets, including
OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical costs associated with
operating NOS, membership fees at away markets, ORFs and technical
costs associated with routing options, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the costs it incurs to
route Customer orders to away markets.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to PHLX and NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per
contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same
Fixed Fee to all orders routed to PHLX and NOM in addition to the
transaction fee assessed by that market. The Exchange would uniformly
assess a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX
exchanges because the Exchange is passing along the saving [sic]
realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market
participants when those orders are routed to PHLX or NOM and is
providing those saving to all market participants. Furthermore, it is
important to note that when orders are routed to an away market they
are

routed based on price first.\10\ The Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a fixed cost of
$0.10 per contract to route orders to PHLX and NOM because the cost, in
terms of actual cash outlays, to the Exchange to route to those markets
is lower. For example, costs related to routing to PHLX and NOM are
lower as compared to other away markets because NOS is utilized by all
three exchanges to route orders.\11\ NOS and the three NASDAQ OMX
options markets have a common data center and staff that are
responsible for the day-to-day operations of NOS. Because the three
exchanges are in a common data center, Routing Fees are reduced because
costly expenses related to, for example, telecommunication lines to
obtain connectivity are avoided when routing orders in this instance.
The costs related to connectivity to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX
exchanges are lower than the costs to route to a non-NASDAQ OMX
exchange. When routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange
incurs costly connectivity charges related to telecommunication lines,
membership and access fees, and other related costs when routing
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 6.
    \11\ See PHLX Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A). See also NOM Rules at
Chapter VI, Section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to
other away markets, other than PHLX and NOM, in the instance the away
market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
assess a lower Routing Fee because the Exchange retains the rebate that
is paid by that market. These proposals would apply uniformly to all
market participants when routing to an away market that pays a rebate,
other than PHLX and NOM. Market participants may submit orders to the
Exchange as ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing
Fees.\12\ Also, orders are routed to an away market based on price
first.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 6.
    \13\ See note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because the
Exchange is applying the same Routing Fees to all market participants
in the same manner dependent on the routing venue, with the exception
of Customers. The Exchange will continue to assess separate Customer
Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the lowest fees as
compared to non-Customers when routing orders, as is the case today.
Other options exchanges also assess lower Routing Fees for customer
orders as compared to non-customer orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses ISE customer routing fees of $0.30 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $ 0.57 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to
recoup its costs when routing Customer orders to PHLX or NOM as well as
away markets that pay a rebate when such orders are designated as
available for routing by the market participant. The Exchange continues
to pass along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when Customer orders
are routed to PHLX or NOM and is providing those savings to all market
participants. Today, other options exchanges also assess fixed routing
fees to recoup costs incurred by the exchange to route orders to away
markets.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible
for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\16\ It is important to
note that when orders are routed to an away market they are routed
based on price first.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 6.
    \17\ See note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BX-2014-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-012. 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-BX-2014-012 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2014.

    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. 2014-05856 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 241)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71284-71286]
[DOCID:fr17de07-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0337; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-111-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. 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:

    During planned maintenance visit on two aircraft, corrosion was
found on the upper surface of the wing lower skin panel N\o\1,
inside the Right Hand (RH) inboard dry bay.
    It was discovered that [certain] access panels * * * had been
omitted from the access requirements of the associated AMM (airplane
maintenance manual) task (AMM 05-25-40) until the August 2001
revision.
    The result is that some * * * inspections may have not been
fully accomplished due to non-removal of [certain] panels * * *.
    If the area has not been inspected with the correct access, and
if AIRBUS Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1121 has not been performed,
then some aircraft could remain insufficiently inspected until the
next scheduled inspection. This may result in a high risk of
corrosion findings greater than level 1.

    Corrosion findings greater than level 1 in the wing could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The proposed AD would
require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 16,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2007-0337;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-111-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 based on those comments.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0064R1, dated September 21, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During planned maintenance visit on two aircraft, corrosion was
found on the upper surface of the wing lower skin panel N\o\1,
inside the Right Hand (RH) inboard dry bay.
    It was discovered that access panels 540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ and
640DZ had been omitted from the access requirements of the
associated AMM (aircraft maintenance manual) task (AMM 05-25-40)
until the August 2001 revision.
    The result is that some ZL-540-02-1 or ZL-540-02-2 (or ZL-540-02
and ZL-640-02) inspections may have not been fully accomplished due
to non-removal of panels 540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ and 640DZ.
    If the area has not been inspected with the correct access, and
if AIRBUS Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1121 has not been performed,
then some aircraft could remain insufficiently inspected until the
next scheduled inspection. This may result in a high risk of
corrosion findings greater than level 1.

    Corrosion findings greater than level 1 in the wing could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The corrective actions
include an inspection for corrosion in the wing tank dry bay, and
repair if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1121, dated October 9,
2002. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 103 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $32,960, or $320 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2007-0337; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
111-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 16, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all
serial numbers, on which Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR)
zonal tasks ZL-540-02 and ZL-640-02 (for MRBR up to Revision 7)

or MRBR zonal task ZL-540-02-1 or ZL-540-02-2 (for MRBR since
Revision 8) have already been performed before the effective date of
this AD, and for which it cannot be substantiated that access panels
540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ and 640DZ were removed for inspection. This AD
does not apply to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes on which zonal tasks ZL-540-02-1 and ZL-540-02-2
(or ZL-540-02 and ZL-640-02) have been performed in accordance with
airplane maintenance manual (AMM) 05-25-40 at August 2001 revision
or later revision.
    (2) Airplanes on which one of the following Airworthiness
Limitation Items (ALI)/MRBR tasks have been performed: 572004-01-X,
572004-03-X; 572020-01-X, 572020-02-X; 572027-01-X, 572027-03-X;
572053-01-X, 572053-02-X; 572060-02-X; or 572061-02-X; where X
represents the task applicability index.
    (3) Airplanes delivered after March 27, 2007.

    Note 1: Up to MRBR Revision 7, ZL-540-02 covered Zone 540 and
ZL-640-02 covered Zone 640. Since MRBR Revision 8, ZL-540-02-1 or
ZL-540-02-2 also cover the corresponding RH wing zone (Zone 640).

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During planned maintenance visit on two aircraft, corrosion was
found on the upper surface of the wing lower skin panel N[deg] 1,
inside the Right Hand (RH) inboard dry bay.
    It was discovered that access panels 540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ and
640DZ had been omitted from the access requirements of the
associated AMM (aircraft maintenance manual) task (AMM 05-25-40)
until the August 2001 revision.
    The result is that some ZL-540-02-1 or ZL-540-02-2 (or ZL-540-02
and ZL-640-02) inspections may have not been fully accomplished due
to non-removal of panels 540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ and 640DZ.
    If the area has not been inspected with the correct access, and
if AIRBUS Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1121 has not been performed,
then some aircraft could remain insufficiently inspected until the
next scheduled inspection. This may result in a high risk of
corrosion findings greater than level 1.
    Corrosion findings greater than level 1 in the wing could result
in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The corrective
actions include an inspection for corrosion in the wing tank dry
bay, and repair if necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 14
months after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed
visual inspection of the wing tank dry bay to detect corrosion and
if any corrosion is found, before further flight, contact Airbus for
repair instructions and repair. Do all applicable actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-57-1121, dated October 9, 2002. Another approved
method for doing the detailed inspection and applicable corrective
actions is the accomplishment of one of the following ALI/MRBR
tasks: 572004-01-X, 572004-03-X; 572020-01-X, 572020-02-X; 572027-
01-X, 572027-03-X; 572053-01-X, 572053-02-X; 572060-02-X; or 572061-
02-X; and ZL-540-02-X if panels 540CZ, 540DZ, 640CZ, and 640DZ
panels have been removed; where X represents the task applicability
index.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Transport Airplane Directorate, International Branch, ANM-116, 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: Tim
Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0064R1,
dated September 21, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1121,
dated October 9, 2002, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 10, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-24332 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 74735-74736]
[DOCID:fr01de10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Food Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Food Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 30 and 31, 2011,
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The Hilton Hotel, Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville Rd.,
Silver Spring, MD 20910,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Carolyn Jeletic, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER> or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly

enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
Agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/
phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: The Food Advisory Committee will meet to discuss whether
available relevant data demonstrate a link between children's
consumption of synthetic color additives in food and adverse effects on
behavior.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 23, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on March 31, 2011. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
March 15, 2011. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 16, 2011.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Carolyn Jeletic at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: November 24, 2010.
 Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-30187 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P