Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 174 / Friday, September 9, 2005 / Notices 53707 

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and 

other charges among the Exchange’s 

members. The Commission believes that 

the proposal should allow the Exchange 

to more accurately charge LMMs the 

Exchange’s true costs when multiple 

options issues are transferred. Further, 

the Commission believes that by making 

the proposal retroactive to January 1, 

2002, the Exchange could make 

adjustments to past transfers in 

accordance with the original intent of 

the fee. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–PCX–2005–

68) and Amendment No. 1 are 

approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E5–4928 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

State Court Decision Affecting 

Recordation of Artisan Liens 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Consistent with Agency 

policy, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) gives notice of 

the holding in Creation Aviation, Inc., 

vs. Textron Financial Corporation, 

Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth 

District, No. 4D04–2178, decided on 

April 27, 2005. The Court in Creston 

held that Federal law pertaining to 

recording with the FAA Aircraft 

Registry did not preempt a Florida 

statute requiring that an artisan lien for 

work on an aircraft first be filed in the 

county where the work was performed 

in order to enforce the lien under 

Florida law. Accordingly, the FAA is 

advising the public that recording an 

artisan lien with the FAA Aircraft 

Registry only, may be insufficient to 

enforce an artisan lien under Florida 

law. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph R. Standell, Aeronautical Center 

Counsel, Monroney Aeronautical Center 

(AMC–7), Federal Aviation 

Administration, 6500 S. MacArthur, 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169; Telephone 

(405) 954–3296. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 44107, the FAA 

maintains an aircraft registry that 

records ‘‘conveyances that affect an 

interest in civil aircraft of the United 

States.’’

The FAA published notice in the 

Federal Register that the FAA Aircraft 

Registry would record artisan liens on 

aircraft that met the minimum 

requirements of state statute. The notice 

stated that, for aircraft, ‘‘there is Federal 

preemption of place of filing: The FAA 

Aircraft Registry at Oklahoma City.’’ 46 

FR 61528, December 17, 1981. The sole 

purpose of that notice was to set out the 

criteria for recording artisan liens with 

the FAA Aircraft Registry. 

Florida Statues, F.S.A. 329.01, 

requires all liens of affecting civil 

aircraft to be filed with the Federal 

Aviation Administration. F.S.A. 329.51 

provides that aircraft liens are 

enforceable provided the lienor records 

a verified lien notice with the clerk of 

the circuit court in the county where the 

aircraft was located when services were 

furnished. 

In Creston, a fixed base operator 

attempted to foreclose a mechanic’s lien 

that had been filed and recorded with 

the FAA consistent with 49 U.S.C. 

44107 and F.S.A. 329.01. However, the 

Florida Court of Appeal held that the 

fixed base operator’s failure to file a 

notice of lien in the county where the 

work was performed rendered the lien 

unenforceable under state law. 

The Florida Court of Appeal did not 

accept the fixed base operator’s 

argument that state or local filing 

requirements contained in F.S.A. 329.51 

were preempted by Federal law. The 

Court in Creston cited Holiday Airlines 

Corporation v. Pacific Propeller, Inc., 

620 F.2d 731 (1980), which had similar 

facts. The Court in Holiday held that a 

lien filed with the FAA was enforceable, 

notwithstanding a lienor’s failure to file 

in the State of Washington. The Court 

held that the ‘‘federal recording statute, 

and rules implementing it, clearly 

preempt the filing requirements of 

Washington law.’’ On the other hand, 

the Court in Holiday held that ‘‘matters 

touching on the validity of liens are 

determined by underlying State law.’’

The Florida Court of Appeal accepted 

the argument that until a lien on a civil 

aircraft is recorded with the FAA 

Aircraft Registry, it is valid only against 

those persons with actual notice and 

their heirs and devises and that after the 

lien is filed with the FAA, it is valid 

against all persons. However, the Court 

determined that the State of Florida is 

not precluded from imposing 

requirements, including local filing 

requirements that affect the 

enforceability of aircraft liens in Florida. 

Interested parties may wish to 

research state lien statutes to determine 

if local requirements affect 

enforceability of artisan liens recorded 

with the FAA. 

Issued in Oklahoma City on September 1, 

2005. 

Joseph R. Standell, 

Aeronautical Center Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–17835 Filed 9–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Summary Notice No. PE–2005–53] 

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of 

Petitions Received 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of petitions for 

exemption received. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking 

provisions governing the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this 

notice contains a summary of certain 

petitions seeking relief from specified 

requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of 

this notice is to improve the public’s 

awareness of, and participation in, this 

aspect of FAA’s regulatory activities. 

Neither publication of this notice nor 

the inclusion or omission of information 

in the summary is intended to affect the 

legal status of any petition or its final 

disposition. 

DATES: Comments on petitions received 

must identify the petition docket 

number involved and must be received 

on or before September 29, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

[identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

FAA–2005–22172 and FAA–2005–

21814] by any of the following methods: 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays.