[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9785-9787]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0018]

BMW of North America, LLC and Volkswagen Group of America; Denial
of Petitions for Temporary Exemption From FMVSS No. 108 for Vehicles
With Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of denial of petitions for a temporary exemption for
vehicles equipped with adaptive driving beam headlighting systems from
certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 108;

``Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.''

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

SUMMARY: This document denies petitions from Volkswagen Group of
America (Volkswagen) and BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) (collectively,
Petitioners) for temporary exemptions from certain requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 to allow installation of adaptive driving beam (ADB)
headlighting systems. Both manufacturers requested exemptions on the
basis that an exemption would facilitate the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to that of the standard. NHTSA has determined
that, in light of the publication today of a final rule amending FMVSS
No. 108 to allow ADB systems, there is no need to grant the requested
exemptions because the standard now allows the deployment of such
systems. Accordingly, the petitions are denied.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Piazza, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 11, 2017, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a
petition from Volkswagen for a temporary exemption from certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 to allow the use of ADB headlights (82 FR
42720). On March 22, 2018, NHTSA published a notice of receipt of a
similar petition from BMW (83 FR 12650). That notice also requested
additional information from Volkswagen, BMW, and any other
manufacturers wishing to submit exemption petitions for ADB systems, to
assist NHTSA in evaluating such petitions.\1\ Volkswagen and BMW
subsequently submitted additional information in response to the 2018
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The basis for both petitions is that an exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of
the standard. 49 CFR 555.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adaptive driving beam systems are an advanced type of semiautomatic
headlamp beam switching technology that aims to address the tradeoff
between forward visibility and glare. ADB systems are capable of
producing a dynamic adaptive beam pattern brighter than a conventional
lower beam, but not as bright as an upper beam. This adaptive beam is
particularly useful for distance illumination of pedestrians, cyclists,
animals, and objects in or near the road when other vehicles are
present and thus preclude use of the upper beam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ADB technology can enhance safety in two ways. First, such
systems provide more illumination than existing lower beams by
providing a sculpted, dynamic beam pattern that adjusts to avoid
glaring other motorists; high-resolution ADB systems are even
capable of classifying objects and placing optimized levels of light
on all objects in the driver's view (such as retroreflective signs
or pedestrians). Second, such systems facilitate increased use of
the upper beam in situations where other vehicles will not be
glared. For both these reasons, ADB has the potential to reduce the
risk of crashes by increasing visibility without increasing glare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is today publishing a final rule amending FMVSS No. 108 to
permit ADB systems. The final rule establishes performance requirements
to ensure that ADB systems operate safely by not glaring other
motorists and providing a minimum level of visibility. The final rule
is effective immediately.

II. Overview of the Petitions

Volkswagen Petition

    Volkswagen petitioned for an exemption from S9.4 and S10.14.6 of
FMVSS No. 108 for its Matrix Beam ADB system on Audi A7 models (which
may also include S7 and Rs7 variants). Section S9.4 requires that a
vehicle have a means of switching between lower and upper beams. The
means must be designed and located so that it may be operated
conveniently by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. The
switch must have no dead point and, except as provided by S<IP_ADDRESS>, the
lower and upper beams must not be energized simultaneously except
momentarily for temporary signaling purposes or during switching
between beams. S10.14.6 specifies the photometry requirements for
integral beam headlighting systems. Volkswagen indicated that the
Matrix Beam may not comply with these requirements.
    The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. Volkswagen explained how the Matrix Beam system operates and
the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. Volkswagen also
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's request for
information in the 2018 notice.

BMW Petition

    BMW petitioned for an exemption from FMVSS No. 108 for BMW i8
vehicles equipped with its Laserlight Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
Similar to Volkswagen, BMW sought an exemption from the requirement of
S9.4 that prohibits the simultaneous energization of the lower and
upper beams and from the upper beam photometry requirements of
S10.14.6. BMW stated that the photometry requirements specify minimum
and maximum photometric intensities of the upper beam light that may
not be met by the Glare-Free High Beam Assist.
    The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle
safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to that of the
standard. BMW explained how the Glare-Free High Beam Assist operates
and the safety benefits it believes the system would offer. BMW also
submitted additional information in response to NHTSA's requests for
information in the 2018 notice.

III. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received 17 comments on one or both of the petitions. Several
manufacturers or trade groups (Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association, SAE, Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance), American Trucking Associations, Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, and Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI))
commented in support of the petitions. Two public interest groups
(Advocates for Highway Safety and Consumers Union) also supported or
conditionally supported granting one or both of the petitions. Several
individual citizens commented in support of granting one or both of the
petitions.
    SAE, the Alliance, and Mercedes also responded to NHTSA's 2018
request for additional information. These comments were repeated in
these organizations' comments to the ADB NPRM. OSRAM, the Alliance,
Mercedes, and TSEI supported SAE's comment. Advocates for Highway
Safety commented on Volkswagen's petition and conditionally supported
it. Consumers Union commented on several issues, and submitted similar
comments to the NPRM.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NHTSA has addressed all significant comments to the NPRM in
the ADB final rule published today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision

    NHTSA has considered Petitioners' arguments, the comments received
on the petitions, and the final rule that is being issued today. NHTSA
has determined that the issuance of the final rule makes it unnecessary
for NHTSA to grant the petitions.

    Petitioners argue that an exemption is necessary because their ADB
systems may not comply with the requirements of S9.4 and S10.14.6. They
also contend that an exemption would facilitate the development and
field evaluation of their ADB systems because it would allow them to
obtain data and consumer feedback on system performance. The
publication of the FMVSS No. 108 final rule published today--that is
effective immediately--permitting the deployment of ADB systems renders
these petitions unnecessary. Petitioners and other manufacturers
wishing to equip vehicles with ADB systems may do so, provided that the
systems comply with the requirements set out in the final rule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We do not read the petitioners as requesting an exemption
from the requirements of the final rule, as the rule did not exist
at the time of their petitions. Alternatively, we believe it is not
necessary, nor would it be in the public interest, to exempt the ADB
systems from the requirements for ADB systems in today's final rule
based on the information provided in the petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements adopted by the final rule are necessary to ensure
that ADB systems operate safely with respect to glare prevention and
visibility. The requirements are generally within the capabilities of
current ADB systems (some system modifications might be necessary).
These issues are discussed at length in the preamble to the final rule.
    We note that the manufacturers' comments regarding the additional
information NHTSA requested were also included in the comments those
same manufacturers submitted to the ADB rulemaking docket in response
to the NPRM. Those comments are addressed in the preamble to the final
rule.
    Decision--Based on the foregoing, the petitions from Volkswagen and
BMW for temporary exemption are denied.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.4, and 501.5.

Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02452 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 74392-74395]
[DOCID:fr15de05-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52899; File No. SR-NASD-2005-136]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Allow Nasdaq To Issue Public Reprimand Letters

December 6, 2005.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 17, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed this
proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder \4\ as non-controversial, and therefore the proposed
rule change is effective immediately upon filing. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify NASD Rules 4801, 4803, 4804 and 4811 to
permit Nasdaq to issue public reprimand letters to listed companies for
certain rule violations when a determination is made that delisting is
not an appropriate sanction. Nasdaq would implement the proposed rule
change upon notice by the Commission.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change is marked to show changes from the
rules as they appear in the electronic NASD Manual available at
http://www.nasd.com.

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

* * * * *
4801. Definitions
    (a)-(j) No change.
    (k) The term ``Staff Determination'' shall mean either:
    (1) a written determination by the Listing Department to limit or
prohibit the initial or continued listing of an issuer's securities
pursuant to Rule 4804[.]; or
    (2) a public reprimand letter in a case where the Listing
Department has determined that the issuer has violated a Nasdaq
corporate governance or notification listing standard (other than one
required by Rule 10A-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and that
delisting is not an appropriate sanction. In determining whether to
issue a public reprimand letter, the Listing Department shall consider
whether the violation was inadvertent, whether the violation materially
adversely affected shareholders' interests, whether the violation has
been cured, whether the issuer reasonably relied on an independent
advisor and whether the issuer has demonstrated a pattern of
violations.
* * * * *
4803. Staff Review of Deficiency
    (a) Whenever staff of the Listing Department determines that an
issuer does not meet a listing standard set forth in the Rule 4000
Series, staff shall immediately notify the issuer. The issuer shall
make a public announcement through the news media disclosing the
receipt of this notice, including the Rule(s) upon which it was based.
Prior to the release of the public announcement, the issuer shall
provide such disclosure to Nasdaq's MarketWatch Department, the Listing
Department, and the Hearings Department. The public announcement

shall be made as promptly as possible, but not more than four business
days following receipt of the notice from the Listing Department.
    (1) In the case of
    (A) all quantitative deficiencies from standards that do not
provide a compliance period;
    (B) deficiencies from the standards of Rules 4350(c) or (d) or
4360(c) or (d) where the cure period of the Rule is not applicable; or
    (C) deficiencies from the standards of Rules 4350(f), (h), (i),
(k), or (n), 4360(f) or (i), or 4351;

staff's notice shall provide the issuer with fifteen calendar days to
submit a plan to regain compliance with the listing standard; provided,
however, that the issuer shall not be provided with an opportunity to
submit such a plan if review under the Rule 4800 Series of a prior
Staff Determination (other than a Staff Determination that serves as a
public reprimand letter as described in Section 4801(k)(2)) with
respect to the issuer is already pending. Subject to the restrictions
of paragraph (b), staff may extend this deadline upon good cause shown.
Upon receipt of the issuer's plan, staff in the Listing Department may
request such additional information from the issuer as is necessary to
make a determination regarding the likelihood that the plan will allow
the issuer to meet the listing standard at issue.
    (2)-(3) No change.
    (b) Unless review under the Rule 4800 Series of a prior Staff
Determination (other than a Staff Determination that serves as a public
reprimand letter as described in section 4801(k)(2)) with respect to
the issuer is already pending, the Listing Department may grant the
issuer additional time to regain compliance with a listing standard
described in paragraph (a)(1); provided, however, that the additional
time provided by all such exceptions shall not exceed 105 calendar days
from the date of staff's notification pursuant to paragraph (a). The
Listing Department shall prepare a written record describing the basis
for granting any exception, and shall provide the issuer with written
notice as to the terms of the exception. If the issuer does not regain
compliance within the time period provided by all applicable
exceptions, the Listing Department shall immediately issue a Staff
Determination pursuant to Rule 4804(a). If the Listing Department
determines not to grant the issuer additional time to regain
compliance, the Listing Department shall immediately issue a Staff
Determination pursuant to Rule 4804(a) that includes a description of
the basis for denying the exception.
4804. Written Notice of Staff Determination
    (a) If the Listing Department reaches a determination to limit or
prohibit the initial or continued listing of an issuer's securities or
to issue a public reprimand letter, it shall prepare and provide to the
issuer a Staff Determination that shall describe the specific grounds
for the determination, identify the quantitative standard or
qualitative consideration set forth in the Rule 4000 Series that the
issuer has failed to satisfy, and provide notice that upon request the
issuer shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing under this Rule
4800 Series.
    (b) An issuer that receives a Staff Determination [to prohibit
continued listing of the issuer's securities] under Rule 4804(a) shall
make a public announcement through the news media disclosing the
receipt of the Staff Determination, including the Rule(s) upon which
the Staff Determination was based. Prior to the release of the public
announcement, an issuer shall provide such disclosure to Nasdaq's
MarketWatch Department, the Listing Department, and the Hearings
Department. The public announcement shall be made as promptly as
possible, but not more than four business days following receipt of the
Staff Determination.
    (c) If review under the Rule 4800 Series of a Staff Determination
described in Rule 4801(k)(1) is pending and the Listing Department
identifies the existence of one or more additional deficiencies with
respect to the issuer, the Listing Department shall prepare and provide
to the issuer a Staff Determination with respect to such additional
deficiencies. If the new Staff Determination is issued prior to a Panel
hearing with respect to the original Staff Determination, the new Staff
Determination shall notify the issuer that it should present its views
with respect to the additional deficiencies at the Panel hearing. If
the new Staff Determination is issued after a Panel hearing with
respect to the original Staff Determination, the new Staff
Determination shall inform the issuer that it should present its views
with respect to the additional deficiencies in writing within the
period specified in the Staff Determination, to allow review of the
additional deficiencies as provided under Rule 4802(d).
    (d) If review under the Rule 4800 Series of a public reprimand
letter is pending and the Listing Department identifies the existence
of one or more additional deficiencies with respect to the issuer, the
Listing Department shall review the additional deficiencies as provided
in Rule 4803.
* * * * *
4811. Record on Review; Contents of Decisions
    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) If a Panel Decision, Listing Council Decision, or decision of
the NASD Board concludes that the issuer has failed to satisfy the
quantitative standards or qualitative considerations set forth in the
Rule 4000 Series, the decision shall either:
    (1) grant an exception to the Rule 4000 Series as permitted by Rule
4802(b);
    (2) limit or prohibit the initial or continued listing of the
issuer's securities; or
    (3) serve as a public reprimand letter in a case where the
Adjudicatory Body determines that the issuer has violated a Nasdaq
corporate governance or notification listing standard (other than one
required by Rule 10A-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and that
delisting is not an appropriate sanction. In determining whether to
issue a public reprimand letter, the Adjudicatory Body shall consider
whether the violation was inadvertent, whether the violation materially
adversely affected shareholders' interests, whether the violation has
been cured, whether the issuer reasonably relied on an independent
advisor and whether the issuer has demonstrated a pattern of
violations.
    (f) An issuer that receives an Adjudicatory Body decision that
serves as a public reprimand letter as described in Rule 4811(e)(3)
shall make a public announcement through the news media disclosing the
receipt of the decision, including the Rule(s) upon which the decision
was based. Prior to the release of the public announcement, an issuer
shall provide such disclosure to Nasdaq's MarketWatch Department, the
Listing Department, and the Hearings Department. The public
announcement shall be made as promptly as possible, but not more than
four business days following receipt of the decision.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to allow the issuance of a public reprimand
letter to a listed company upon a determination that the company has
violated a Nasdaq corporate governance or notification listing standard
and that delisting is not an appropriate sanction. The Commission
recently approved a proposed rule change to Nasdaq's procedures
associated with denying or limiting companies' initial or continued
listing on Nasdaq.\6\ Under these new procedures, the staff of Nasdaq's
Listing Qualifications Department (``Listing Department'') provides
written notice to an issuer of a deficiency when a determination has
been made that a listing requirement has not been satisfied. Depending
upon the nature of the deficiency, the notice takes the form of a Staff
Determination, which initiates proceedings to deny or limit listing, or
a deficiency letter that provides the issuer with 15 days to submit a
plan to regain compliance with the listing standard.\7\ If an issuer
receives a Staff Determination, it may then request a hearing before a
Listing Qualifications Panel (``Panel''). Upon receiving a decision
from the Panel (``Panel Decision''), the issuer may appeal the decision
to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council (``Listing Council'').
The final decision of the Listing Council (``Listing Council
Decision'') is subject to review by the NASD Board of Directors and the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52342 (August 26,
2005), 70 FR 52456 (September 2, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-125).
    \7\ Under NASD Rule 4803, upon the expiration of the 15 day
period provided in a deficiency notice, the staff is required either
to initiate delisting proceedings or grant an issuer up to 105 days
to regain compliance with the listing standard. The staff's
authority to grant an exception does not apply to quantitative
listing standards that, by their terms, specify a cure period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current rules, a Staff Determination initiates
proceedings to deny or limit listing. In monitoring the compliance of
listed companies with Nasdaq's corporate governance rules, Nasdaq has
identified circumstances where delisting would be disproportionate to
the underlying deficiency. Nasdaq believes that the availability of a
lesser sanction in the form of a public reprimand letter would ensure
that investors are not harmed by the premature delisting of companies
in certain limited situations where violations involve a relatively
minor infraction of certain Nasdaq corporate governance standards or
notice requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Examples of some circumstances where Nasdaq could determine
to issue a public reprimand letter include those where: (1) The
staff determines that a company engaged in a pattern of failing to
provide advance notice of press releases to the Nasdaq StockWatch
department; (2) the staff becomes aware that a company with a
December 31 fiscal year end has not held an annual meeting for the
prior year as of early January, but the company has filed a proxy to
hold the meeting in the next few weeks; or (3) the staff determines
that an independent director resigned from the company and was
replaced with another independent director, but the company did not
provide prior notice to Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, thus, would modify NASD Rule 4801(k) to
provide that, depending on the nature of the deficiency, a Staff
Determination may take the form of either: (1) A written determination
to limit or prohibit the initial or continued listing of an issuer's
securities or (2) a public reprimand letter. Under the proposed rule
change, the Listing Department could issue a public reprimand letter to
an issuer only upon a determination that the issuer violated a Nasdaq
corporate governance or notification listing standard (other than one
required by Rule 10A-3 under the Act \9\) and that delisting is not an
appropriate sanction. In determining whether to issue a public
reprimand letter, the Listing Department would consider whether the
violation was inadvertent, whether the violation materially adversely
affected shareholders' interests, whether the violation has been cured,
whether the issuer reasonably relied on an independent advisor, and
whether the issuer has demonstrated a pattern of violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because a public reprimand letter would be considered a Staff
Determination, it would be subject to appeal in the same manner as a
notice to deny or limit listing. The proposed rule change also would
modify NASD Rule 4804(b) to clarify that once a public reprimand letter
is issued, a company would be required to make a public announcement
through the news media disclosing the receipt of the letter, including
the basis for the staff's determination. The timetable for the public
announcement would be the same as for a deficiency or delisting
letter--as promptly as possible, but not later than four business days
following receipt of the public reprimand letter.
    Nasdaq also proposes to amend NASD Rules 4803, 4804(c), and 4804(d)
to clarify that if an appeal of a public reprimand letter is pending,
an issuer would not be disqualified from receiving an exception with
respect to any additional deficiencies under NASD Rule 4803. If a Staff
Determination is under review when the staff issues an additional
deficiency notice, the current rules do not permit the staff to provide
additional time to the issuer to cure the violation or to submit a plan
to regain compliance with the listing standards. Instead, staff must
issue a new Staff Determination with respect to the additional
deficiencies under NASD Rule 4804(c) and notify the issuer that it
should present its views with respect to the new deficiencies at the
Panel hearing or, if the Panel hearing has occurred, in writing.
Because public reprimand letters generally would involve minor rule
violations and are intended to be a lesser sanction than delisting,
Nasdaq believes it would not be appropriate to deny issuers that appeal
such a letter the benefit of the exception provided by NASD Rule 4803
in the event an additional deficiency is identified.
    Nasdaq also proposes to modify NASD Rule 4811 to provide that a
Panel Decision, Listing Council Decision, or decision of the NASD Board
could, in addition to granting an exception or limiting or prohibiting
the initial or continued listing of an issuer's securities, serve as a
public reprimand letter. Under the proposed rule change, like the
Listing Department, the appropriate Adjudicatory Body \10\ could issue
a public reprimand letter to an issuer only upon a determination that
the issuer violated a Nasdaq corporate governance or notification
listing standard (other than one required by Rule 10A-3 under the Act
\11\) and that delisting is not an appropriate sanction. In determining
whether to issue a public reprimand letter, the Adjudicatory Body would
be required to consider the same criteria as the Listing Department. As
in the case of a public reprimand letter issued by the staff, an issuer
that receives a public reprimand letter issued by an Adjudicatory Body
would be required to make a public announcement through the news media
disclosing receipt of the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NASD Rule 4801(b) defines ``Adjudicatory Body'' to mean a
Panel, the Listing Council, or the NASD Board.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq continues to believe that delisting is the appropriate
sanction for companies that fall below the quantitative listing
requirements, violate

Nasdaq listing standards, or raise public interest concerns. Nasdaq
believes, however, that the authority to issue public reprimand letters
would provide Nasdaq with the ability to impose lesser sanctions on
issuers in limited circumstances, when delisting is not appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of section 15A of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq believes that this
proposed rule change would increase the objectivity and transparency of
its process of sanctioning companies for violations of listing
standards and would promote public confidence in Nasdaq and the quality
of Nasdaq's listed companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change would result
in 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

    Nasdaq neither solicited nor received written comments.

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

    This proposal has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \14\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder \15\
because the proposal: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest, (2) does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and (3) by its terms does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. Nasdaq has requested that the
Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. The
Commission notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar
to New York Stock Exchange Rule 303A.13,\16\ which was previously
approved by the Commission after notice and comment and, therefore,
does not raise any new regulatory issues.\17\ For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon
filing with the Commission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 48745 (November 4,
2003), 68 FR 64154 (November 12, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-33).
    \17\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires a self-regulatory
organization to give written notice of a proposed rule change filed
pursuant to this subsection at least five business days prior to
filing. Nasdaq complied with this requirement.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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-NASD-2005-136 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-136. 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 Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-136 and should be submitted on or before
January 5, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7384 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5047-5048]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications; Public Notice

January 26, 2007.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding,

to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the
communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral
communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Docket No.                   Date received                 Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP06-54-000.........................         1-23-07  Stewart P. McMullan.
Exempt:
    1. CP06-54-000.........................         1-24-07  Hon. Gina McCarthy.
    2. Project No. 2100-00.................         1-25-07  Kenneth Sanchez.
    3. Project No. 2539-000................         1-16-07  Hon. Charles E. Schumer.
                                                             Hon. Michael R. McNulty.
    4. Project No. 2545-000................         1-18-07  Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-1672 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12486-12488]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1085; Product Identifier 2016-SW-094-AD; Amendment
39-19603; AD 2019-06-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1,
MBB-BK 117A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK
117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the tail rotor (T/R) gearbox housing. This AD was
prompted by a report that a crack was found in a T/R gearbox housing.
The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 7, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of May 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1085.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1085; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On September 10, 2018, at 83 FR 45578, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus
Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK
117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require a repetitive cleaning and
visual inspection of the T/R gearbox housing for a crack, and replacing
the T/R gearbox if there is a crack. The proposed requirements were
intended to detect a crack in a T/R gearbox housing, which could result
in the loss of the T/R gearbox and subsequent loss of helicopter
control.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2016-0134, dated July 8, 2016,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-
BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, MBB BK 117 C-2, and MBB-BK
117 C-2e helicopters. EASA advises that a crack was found in the T/R
gearbox housing of a Model MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter. According to EASA,
investigations determined high vibrations caused by T/R imbalance were
a contributing factor to the crack. EASA states that this condition, if
not detected and corrected, could lead to the loss of the T/R gearbox
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. As a result, the EASA
AD requires repetitive inspections of the T/R gearbox housing and
replacing the housing if a crack is found.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Union, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition
described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated
all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these
same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 C-2e helicopters, and this
AD does not because it is not an FAA type-certificated model. The EASA
AD allows a non-cumulative tolerance of 10 hours time-in-service for
the inspections, and this AD does not. The EASA AD requires performing
the inspection after a certain maintenance action and before a T/R
gearbox housing is installed, and this AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-
BK117-30A-119, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, for Model MBB-BK 117 A-
1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and
MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-65A-007, Revision 0,
dated May 24, 2016, for MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This service
information specifies an initial and repetitive inspections of the T/R
gearbox housing for cracks.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 176 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Inspecting the T/R gearbox requires 1 work-hour for an estimated
cost of $85 per helicopter and $14,960 for the U.S. fleet per
inspection cycle. Replacing the T/R gearbox requires 4.5 work-hours and
parts cost $69,219 for an estimated cost of $69,602 per helicopter.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-06-05 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-19603;
Docket No. FAA-2017-1085; Product Identifier 2016-SW-094-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-
BK 117 B-2, MBB-BK 117 C-1, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a tail rotor
(T/R) gearbox housing. This condition could result in the loss of
the T/R gearbox and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 7, 2019.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, clean and visually inspect
the T/R gearbox housing for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1
of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-30A-
119, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, or ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-65A-007,
Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016, as applicable to your model
helicopter. If there is a crack, replace the T/R gearbox before
further flight.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0134, dated July 8, 2016. You may view the
EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FAA-2017-1085.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor
Gearbox.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117-
30A-119, Revision 0, dated May 24, 2016.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-65A-007, Revision 0,
dated May 24, 2016.
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 20, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-06022 Filed 4-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 49753-49755]
[DOCID:fr29au07-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56306; File No. SR-ISE-2007-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, Relating to an Extension of the Penny Pilot Program

August 22, 2007.
    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 August 21, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been substantially prepared by ISE. On
August 22, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 ISE is proposing to expand a pilot program to quote and trade
certain options in pennies. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://www.ise.com, at 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
    On January 24, 2007, the Commission approved ISE's rule filing, SR-
ISE-2006-62, which allowed 13 option classes to quote in penny
increments in connection with the implementation of an industry-wide,
six month pilot program (the ``Penny Pilot Program'').\3\ Under the
Penny Pilot Program, the minimum price variation for all 13 option
classes, except for the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (``QQQQs''), is
$0.01 for all quotations in option series that are quoted at less than
$3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in options series that are
quoted at $3 per contract or greater. The QQQQs are quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. A recent extension of the Penny
Pilot Program is scheduled to expire on September 27, 2007.\4\ ISE now
proposes to expand the Penny Pilot Program in two phases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55161 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4754 (February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62) (the ``Initial
Filing'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56151 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42452 (August 2, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both phases, the 13 options classes currently in the Penny Pilot
Program would continue to be quoted as they are today. In addition,
Phase I of the expansion would begin on September 28, 2007 and would
continue for six months. This phase would include the 22 additional
option classes noted in Exhibit 5. These 22 option classes are among
the most actively traded, multiply-listed option classes based on
national average daily volume, and together with the existing 13 option
classes that are currently in the Penny Pilot Program, represent
approximately 35% of the total industry volume.
    Phase II of the expansion would begin on March 28, 2008 and
continue for one year until March 27, 2009. It is currently anticipated
that an additional 28 option classes would be added to the Penny Pilot
Program on March 28, 2008, bringing the total number of option classes
in the Penny Pilot Program to 63. These 28 new option classes would
also be among the most actively traded, multiply-listed option classes.
ISE intends to submit a proposed rule change pursuant to section
(b)(3)(A) of

the Exchange Act announcing the names of these twenty-eight option
classes prior to the beginning of Phase II and, pursuant to ISE Rule
710, intends to disseminate a Regulatory Information Circular.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Telephone conversation between Samir Patel, Assistant
General Counsel, ISE, Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel, Division of
Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission, and Johnna Dumler,
Special Counsel, Division, Commission on August 22, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE believes that expanding the Penny Pilot Program as proposed by
this rule filing would allow the Exchange and the Commission to further
analyze, and over a longer period of time, the impact of quoting and
trading option classes in penny increments and the impact of the Penny
Pilot Program on liquidity, market structure and quote traffic.
    As proposed in the Initial Filing, ISE represents that options
trading in penny increments would not be eligible for split pricing, as
permitted under ISE Rule 716. In the Initial Filing, the Exchange also
referenced quote mitigation strategies that are currently in place and
proposed to apply them to the Penny Pilot Program. The Exchange
proposes to continue applying those quote mitigation strategies during
the extension and expansion of the Penny Pilot Program, as contemplated
by this rule filing. Specifically, as proposed in ISE Rule 804, ISE
would continue to utilize a holdback timer that delays quotation
updates for up to, but not longer than, one second. The Exchange's
monitoring and delisting policies, as proposed in the Initial Filing,
would also continue to apply.
    Finally, ISE intends to submit reports to the Commission analyzing
the Penny Pilot Program for the following time periods:
     May 1, 2007-September 27, 2007.
     September 28, 2007-January 31, 2008.
     February 1, 2008-July 31, 2008.
     August 1, 2008-January 31, 2009.
    The Exchange anticipates its reports will analyze the impact of
penny pricing on market quality and options system capacity. The
Exchange will submit each report within one month following the end of
the period being analyzed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that the
proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. The Commission also requests and
encourages interested persons to submit comments on the following
specific questions:
     Whether there are circumstances under which options
classes included in the Penny Pilot should be removed from the Pilot?
     If so, what factors should be considered in making the
determination to remove an option class from the Penny Pilot?
     Should an objective standard be used? For instance, should
an option class come out of the Penny Pilot if its trading volume drops
below a threshold amount? If so, what should that threshold be? Or,
should an option class come out of the Penny Pilot if it is no longer
among the most actively traded options? If so, what should be
considered the most actively traded options? What statistics or
analysis should be used to support a determination to remove an options
class?
     Should a more subjective analysis be allowed? If so, what
factors should be taken into account?
     What concerns might arise by removing an option from the
Penny Pilot? How could such concerns be ameliorated?
     How frequently should the analysis be undertaken (e.g.,
annually, bi-annually, quarterly), or should the evaluation be an
automated process?
     If a determination is made that an option should be
removed from the Penny Pilot, how much notice should be given to market
participants that the quoting increment will change?
    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-ISE-2007-74 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-74. 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 Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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-ISE-2007-74
and should be submitted on or before September 19, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17081 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 58529]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-57]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Delta Air
Lines, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3932
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 23, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-3932
    Petitioner: Delta Air Lines, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  93.123
    Description of Relief Sought: Delta Air Lines seeks relief to
permit Delta Air Lines or any of its duly authorized ``Delta
Connection'' carriers to operate two slots to maintain the daily
nonstop service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA)
and Lansing, Michigan's Capital Region International Airport (LAN)
currently authorized by FAA Exemption Number 10466.
[FR Doc. 2015-24598 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P