[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14404-14408]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-095-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-25-
07 for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and AD
2005-13-39 for certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. AD 2003-25-
07 currently requires a revision to the airplane flight manual (AFM)
and replacement of both elevator aileron computers (ELACs) having L80
standards with new ELACs having L81 standards. AD 2005-13-39 currently
requires a revision to the AFM, replacement of existing ELACs with
ELACs having either L83 or L91 standards, as applicable; and a
concurrent action. Since we issued AD 2003-25-07 and AD 2005-13-39, we
have determined that new ELAC standards must be incorporated. The ELAC
standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements enhanced
angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better detect AOA blockage,
including multiple AOA blockages. This proposed AD would require
replacing existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards or
revising the software in an existing ELAC to the L97+ standards, as
applicable, which would terminate the requirements of AD 2003-25-07 and
AD 2005-13-39. This proposed AD would also add Airbus Model A318 series
airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent
inadvertent activation of the AOA protections. Inadvertent activation
of the AOA protections could result in a continuous nose down pitch
rate that could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4226; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 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-2016-4226;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-095-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.
    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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 5, 2003, we issued AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390
(68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003). AD 2003-25-07 requires a revision of
the AFM and replacement of both ELACs having L80 standards with new
ELACs having L81 standards on Airbus Model A319 and A320 series
airplanes equipped with L80 standards. The replacement of both ELACs
terminates the requirement for the AFM revision.
    On June 17, 2005, we issued AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70
FR 38580, July 5, 2005). AD 2005-13-39 requires a revision of the AFM,
a concurrent action, and replacement of existing ELACs with ELACs
having L83 or L91 standards on certain Airbus Model A321 series
airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431,
December 18, 2003); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580,
July 5, 2005); we have determined that new ELAC standards must be
incorporated. The ELAC standard software has been updated to version
L97+ and the hardware is available in a data loadable version and a
non-data-loadable version.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0088R1, dated June 2, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The latest elevator aileron computer (ELAC) standard, L97+,
implements enhanced Angle of Attack (AOA) monitoring in order to
better detect cases of AOA blockage, including multiple AOA
blockage.
    Two ELAC L97+ versions are currently available, Part Number (P/
N)<PHONE_NUMBER> with data loading capability, and P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
without the data loading capability. Three existing [EASA] ADs
requiring installation of earlier ELAC (software) have been
identified and taken into account for cancellation by this new
[EASA] AD.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0088,
cancelling DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation
Civile] France AD 95-203-072 (no requirements retained) [which
corresponds to FAA AD 98-09-18, Amendment 39-10499 (63 FR 23374,
April 29, 1998)], and partially retaining the requirements of DGAC
France AD 2001-508 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-25-07,
Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003), and [DGAC] AD
F-2004-147 (EASA approval ref. 2004-8601) [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005)],
which were superseded, and to require replacement of all ELAC with
ELAC L97+ standard.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, some errors were detected in
Appendix 1 of the [EASA] AD, and one P/N ELAC was inadvertently
omitted. This [EASA] AD revises EASA AD 2015-0088 to correct these
errors and to add clarification to paragraph (7) [of the EASA AD].

    The required actions include either replacing existing ELACs with
new ELACs having L97+ standards uploaded, or revising the software in
the existing ELACs to L97+ standards. This proposed AD also adds Airbus
Model A318 series airplanes to the applicability. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4226.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, dated March 17,
2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the
existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards, and modifying
existing ELACs into units with L97+ standards.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March
5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modification
of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit with an ELAC 97+
unit having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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.

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 these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 940 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions required by AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR
70431, December 18, 2003), and retained in this proposed AD take about
1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are
required by AD 2003-25-07 is $85 per product.
    The actions required by AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR
38580, July 5, 2005), and retained in this proposed AD take about 1
work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are
required by AD 2005-13-39 is $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $7,230
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,035,900, or $7,485 per product.
    According to the parts manufacturer, some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390
(68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176
(70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
095-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 2, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431,
December 18, 2003); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR
38580, July 5, 2005).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new elevator
aileron computers (ELAC) standards must be incorporated. The ELAC
standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements
enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better detect AOA
blockage, including multiple AOA blockages. We are issuing this AD
to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections.
Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result in a
continuous nose down pitch rate that could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Replacement of ELAC L80 Units With L81 Units, With No
Changes

    For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, equipped with ELAC L80
standards having part numbers listed in Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001: This paragraph restates the
requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390
(68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003), with no changes. Within 1 year
after January 22, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2003-25-07):
Replace both ELACs having L80 standards with new ELACs having L81
standards, by doing all the actions per paragraphs A., B., C., and
D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001.

(h) Retained Installation of ELAC L83 or L91 Software, With No Changes

    For Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, and -231 airplanes, except
those with Airbus Modification 34043 installed in production: This
paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2005-13-
39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005), with no changes.
Within 16 months after August 9, 2005 (the effective date of AD
2005-13-39): Replace existing ELACs with ELACs having L83 standards,
by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1151, dated March 9,
2004, including Appendix 01, dated March 9, 2004; or with ELACs
having L91 standards, by accomplishing all of the actions specified
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
27-1152, dated June 4, 2004, including Appendix 01, dated June 4,
2004; as applicable.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: ELAC Replacement or Modification

    At the applicable times specified in table 1 to paragraph (i) of
this AD: Replace each ELAC unit with an ELAC L97+ unit having part
number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> and software having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
modify existing ELAC units into ELAC L97+ units having P/N
3945129100 with L97+ operational software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> loaded, as
applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, dated March 17, 2015.
Accomplishing this replacement terminates the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

          Table 1 to Paragraph (i) of This AD--Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Compliance time  (after the
        Airbus airplane models             effective date of this AD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A318 series airplanes with UTAS  Within 5 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED
 or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A319 series airplanes with UTAS  Within 10 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED
 or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A320 series airplanes with UTAS  Within 10 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED
 or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A321 series airplanes with UTAS  Within 5 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED
 or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A318, A319, A320, and A321       Within 25 months.
 series airplanes that do not have
 UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N
 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in
 all 3 positions (captain, first
 officer, and standby).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Optional Method of Compliance

    Modification of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit
with an ELAC 97+ unit having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1244,
dated March 5, 2015, is an acceptable method of compliance for the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, for only that modified
airplane. Accomplishing this modification terminates the actions
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that modified
airplane.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD: ELAC unit P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> is
not data-loadable, but it is fully interchangeable and mixable with
data-loadable ELAC 97+ unit P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> with software P/N
3945129109 loaded.

(k) Exclusion From Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), and
the Actions in Paragraph (j), of This AD

    Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 156546 (installation of
ELAC L97+ with software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) was installed in production
are excluded from the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i)
of this AD and the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD,
provided it can be determined that no ELAC having a part number
identified in table 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD has been installed
on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness.

    Table 2 to Paragraph (k) of This AD--Prohibited ELAC Part Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Part number                 Designation              FIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3945122202....................  ELAC A320-111 Type Def  2 CE 1/2.
3945122203....................  ELAC L50C.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122303....................  ELAC L50C.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122304....................  ELAC L60..............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122305....................  ELAC L61B.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122306....................  ELAC L61F.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122307....................  ELAC L62C.............  2 CE 1/2.
C12370AA01....................  ELAC L68C.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122501....................  ELAC L69..............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122502....................  ELAC L69J.............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122503....................  ELAC L77..............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122504....................  ELAC L78..............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122505....................  ELAC A L80............  2 CE 1/2.
3945123505....................  ELAC A' L80...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128101....................  ELAC B L80............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122506....................  ELAC A L81............  2 CE 1/2.
3945123506....................  ELAC A' L81...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128102....................  ELAC B L81............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122507....................  ELAC A L82............  2 CE 1/2.
3945123507....................  ELAC A' L82...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128103....................  ELAC B L82............  2 CE 1/2.
3945122608....................  ELAC A L83............  2 CE 1/2.
3945123608....................  ELAC A' L83...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945122609....................  ELAC A L84............  2 CE 1/2.
3945123609....................  ELAC A' L84...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128204....................  ELAC B L90L...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128205....................  ELAC B L90N...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128206....................  ELAC B L91............  2 CE 1/2.
3945129101....................  ELAC B L91 data         2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
3945128207....................  ELAC B L92............  2 CE 1/2.
3945128208....................  ELAC B L92L...........  2 CE 1/2.
3945128209....................  ELAC B L93............  2 CE 1/2.
3945129103....................  ELAC B L93 data         2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
3945128210....................  ELAC B L94............  2 CE 1/2.
3945129104....................  ELAC B L94 data         2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
3945128212....................  ELAC B L96............  2 CE 1/2.
3945129106....................  ELAC B L96 data         2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
3945129107....................  ELAC B L96 H-A data     2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
3945128214....................  ELAC B L97............  2 CE 1/2.
3945129108....................  ELAC B L97 data         2 CE 1/2 SW1.
                                 loadable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(l) Later-Approved Parts

    Installation of an ELAC version (part number) approved after the
effective date of this AD is an approved method of compliance with
the requirements of paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, provided the
requirements specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD
are met.
    (1) The version (part number) must be approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    (2) The installation must be done using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(m) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or
(m)(2) of this AD, do not install on any airplane an ELAC unit
having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraph (k) of this
AD, except as specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD,
has any ELAC unit installed having a part number identified in table
2 to paragraph (k) of this AD: After modification of that airplane
as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, or as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD,
does not have any ELAC unit installed having a part number
identified in table 2 to paragraph (k) of this AD: As of the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, a data-loadable ELAC B
unit having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraph (k) of
this AD can be installed on an airplane provided that L97+ software
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> is uploaded at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (m)(3)(i) or (m)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph
(m)(3)(ii) of this AD: Before further flight after the ELAC B unit
installation.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been modified as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance time
specified in table 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-
13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003), are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-
14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0088R1, dated June 2, 2015,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4226.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2016-05830 Filed 3-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81407-81409]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32653]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76739; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-153]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates

December 22, 2015.
    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 December 15, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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, entitled ``Options
Pricing,'' at Section 2, which governs pricing for Exchange members
using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), the Exchange's facility for
executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
    The Exchange purposes [sic] to remove specific rule text added in
SR-NASDAQ-2015-149,\3\ which was applicable only to the mid-month
pricing change.\4\ This proposal removes the specific December 2015
dates from the rule text so the rebates will apply in January 2016.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated the amendments [sic] become operative on
January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed rule change is not yet published. This
proposed rule change was filed on December 2, 2015.
    \4\ The Commission notes that after the Exchange filed this
proposal, the notice for SR-NASDAQ-2015-149 was published for public
comment. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76651 (December 15,
2015), 80 FR 79387 (December 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.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 Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2, entitled
``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates'' to amend Tier 8 of the
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options \5\ Rebates to Add
Liquidity. The proposed rule change is detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28,
2008), 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874
(October 23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-
091) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and
extending Penny Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292
(November 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
61455 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-013) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR
25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
65969 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79268 (December 21, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-169) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness [sic]
extension and replacement of Penny Pilot); 67325 (June 29, 2012), 77
FR 40127 (July 6, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-075) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through December 31, 2012); 68519 (December 21, 2012), 78 FR 136
(January 2, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-143) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2013); 69787 (June 18, 2013), 78 FR 37858 (June 24,
2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-082) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2013); 71105 (December 17, 2013), 78 FR 77530 (December
23, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-154) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
June 30, 2014); 79 FR 31151 [sic] (May 23, 2014), 79 FR 31151 (May
30, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-056) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot through
December 31, 2014); 73686 (December 2, 2014) [sic], 79 FR 71477
(November 25, 2014) [sic] (SR-NASDAQ-2014-115) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot
through June 30, 2015) and 75283 (June 24, 2015), 80 FR 37347 (June
30, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-063) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness and extension and replacement of Penny Pilot). See
also NOM Rules, Chapter VI, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity

    Today, the Exchange offers Participants tiered Customer and
Professional rebates based on various criteria, with rebates ranging
from $0.20 to $0.48 per contract.\6\ The Exchange filed SR-NASDAQ-2015-
149,\7\ on December 2, 2015, to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity tiers.
Participants may qualify for Customer and Professional Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by adding a certain amount of
liquidity as specified by each tier.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NOM's Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
    \7\ See note 3 above.
    \8\ Tiers 6 and 7 are calculated based on Total Volume. Total
Volume is defined as Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer,
Non-NOM Market Maker, and NOM Market Maker volume in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options which either adds or removes
liquidity on NOM. See note ``b'' in Section 2(1) of Chapter XV. The
Exchange utilizes data from The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') to determine the total industry customer equity and ETF
options ADV figure. OCC classifies equity and ETF options volume
under the equity options category. Also, both customer and
professional orders that are transacted on options exchanges clear
in the customer range at OCC and therefore both customer and
professional volume would be included in the total industry figure
to calculate rebate tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity, which states
``Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker,
and/or Broker-

Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options
above 0.75% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option
ADV contracts per day in a month or Participant adds (1) Customer and/
or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
Options of 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month and (2) the
Participant has certified for the Investor Support Program \9\ set
forth in Rule 7014 from December 2, 2015 through December 31, 2015'' to
remove the reference to the December dates. The date range, from
December 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015, was added to accommodate a mid-
month pricing change that impacted that specific timeframe. The
Exchange intends to continue to offer Participants the opportunity to
earn the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity and therefore proposes to remove the specific date range.
Tier 8 will be offered to Participants as of January 4, 2016 and
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a detailed description of the Investor Support Program
(``ISP''), see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63270 (November
8, 2010), 75 FR 69489 (November 12, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-141) (notice
of filing and immediate effectiveness) (the ``ISP Filing''). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63414 (December 2, 2010),
75 FR 76505 (December 8, 2010) (NASDAQ-2010-153) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness); and 63628 (January 3, 2011), 76 FR
1201 (January 7, 2011) (NASDAQ-2010-154) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny
Pilot Option Rebate to Add Liquidity will continue to incentivize
market participants to send order flow to NOM, the resulting liquidity
will benefit all market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) and
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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 the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Customer volume is important because it continues to attract liquidity
to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. Further, with
respect to Professional liquidity, the Exchange initially established
Professional pricing in order to ``. . . bring additional revenue to
the Exchange.'' \12\ The Exchange noted in the Professional Filing that
it believes ``. . . that the increased revenue from the proposal would
assist the Exchange to recoup fixed costs.'' \13\ In addition, the
Exchange noted in that filing that it believes that establishing
separate pricing for a Professional, which ranges between that of a
Customer and market maker, accomplishes this objective.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May 13,
2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066)
(``Professional Filing''). In this filing, the Exchange addressed
the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals who were assessed
fees and paid rebates like a Customer prior to the filing. The
Exchange noted in that filing that a Professional, unlike a retail
Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that contain
functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \13\ See Professional Filing.
    \14\ See Professional Filing. The Exchange also [sic] in the
Professional Filing that it believes the role of the retail Customer
in the marketplace is distinct from that of the Professional and the
Exchange's fee proposal at that time accounted for this distinction
by pricing each market participant according to their roles and
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
December 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015 date range is reasonable because
the Exchange seeks to continue to incentivize Participants to send
order flow to NOM. The Exchange believes that the heightened volume
requirement to qualify for Tier 8, as compared with other tier volume
requirements, combined with the requirement to continue to certify for
the Investor Support Program will continue to incentivize Participants
to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or
Professional volume, which liquidity will benefit other market
participants by providing them the opportunity to interact with that
liquidity. The Exchange notes that incentivizing Participants to add
options liquidity through the payment of an additional rebate is not
novel as, today, Tier 8 permits the additional [sic] of equity volume
to qualify for this rebate. The concept of participating in the
equities market as a means to qualify for an options rebate exists
today. This participation benefits the Nasdaq Market Center as well as
the NOM market by incentivizing order flow to these markets. This
rebate recognizes the prevalence of trading in which members
simultaneously trade different asset classes within the same strategy.
Participants will continue to be required to add liquidity to both the
options and equities requirement if they qualify for the Tier 8 rebate
utilizing the second method.\15\ Because cash equities and options
markets are linked, with liquidity and trading patterns on one market
affecting those on the other, the Exchange believes that pricing
incentives that encourage market participant activity in NOM also
support price discovery and liquidity provision in the Nasdaq Market
Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ There are two ways to qualify for the Tier 8 rebate, as
amended by this proposal, either: (1) Participant adds Customer,
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options
above 0.75% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option
ADV contracts per day in a month; or (2) Participant adds Customer
and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 30,000 or more contracts per day in a month
and the Participant has certified for the Investor Support Program
set forth in Rule 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
December 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015 date range is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all Participants may continue to
qualify for Tier 8. Qualifying Participants will continue to be
uniformly paid a $0.48 per contract rebate.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates To Add Liquidity
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 8 of the Customer and
Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity to remove the
December 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015 date range does not impose an
undue burden on intra-market competition because all Participants are
eligible to qualify for the Tier 8 Customer or Professional Rebate to
Add Liquidity, provided they meet the qualifications. Also, the Tier 8
rebate will be uniformly paid to those Participants that are eligible
for the rebate.
    As noted above, continuing to incentivize Participants to add not
only options but equities volume does not impose an undue burden on
intra-market competition because cash equities and options markets are
linked, with liquidity and trading patterns on one market affecting
those on the other; the Exchange believes that pricing incentives that
encourage market

participant activity in NOM also support price discovery and liquidity
provision in the Nasdaq Market Center. Further, the pricing incentives
require significant levels of liquidity provision, which benefits all
market participants on NOM and the Nasdaq Market Center.

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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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-NASDAQ-2015-153 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-NASDAQ-2015-153. 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-NASDAQ-2015-153, and should
be submitted on or before January 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32653 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45683-45686]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 270

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0060, Notice No. 11]
RIN 2130-AC81

System Safety Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; stay of regulations.

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

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring
commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a
system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations.
FRA has stayed the SSP final rule's requirements until September 4,
2019. FRA is issuing this final rule to extend that stay until March 4,
2020.

DATES: Effective August 29, 2019, 49 CFR part 270, stayed February 13,
2017, at 82 FR 10443, and further stayed March 21, 2017, at 82 FR
14476, May 22, 2017, at 82 FR 23150, June 7, 2017, at 82 FR 26359,
November 30, 2017, at 82 FR 56744, and December 7, 2018, at 83 FR
63106, is further stayed until March 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Gross, Attorney, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office
of Chief Counsel; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final
rule requiring commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop
and implement an SSP to improve the safety of their operations. See 81
FR 53850. On February 10, 2017, FRA stayed the SSP final rule's
requirements until March 21, 2017, consistent with the new
Administration's guidance issued January 20, 2017, intended to provide
the Administration an adequate opportunity to review new and pending
regulations. See 82 FR 10443 (Feb. 13, 2017). To provide additional
time for that review, FRA extended the stay until May 22, 2017, June 5,
2017, December 4, 2017, December 4, 2018, and then September 4, 2019.
See 82 FR 14476 (Mar. 21, 2017); 82 FR 23150 (May 22, 2017); 82 FR
26359 (June 7, 2017); 82 FR

56744 (Nov. 30, 2017), and 83 FR 63106 (Dec. 7, 2018). The provisions
in part 270 were adopted on August 12, 2016, for the purposes of 49
U.S.C. 20119(b). That adoption was unaffected by the subsequent stays.
    FRA's review included petitions for reconsideration of the SSP
final rule (Petitions). Various rail labor organizations (Labor
Organizations) filed a single joint petition.\1\ State and local
transportation departments and authorities (States) filed the three
other petitions, one of which was a joint petition (State Joint
Petition).\2\ The State Joint Petition requested that FRA stay the SSP
final rule, and NCDOT specifically requested that FRA stay the rule
while FRA was considering the petitions. All Petitions were available
for public comment in the docket for the SSP rulemaking. On November
15, 2016, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
submitted a comment supporting the State Joint Petition, also asking
FRA to stay the SSP final rule. FRA did not receive any public comments
opposing the States' requests for a stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The labor organizations that filed the joint petition are:
The American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA), Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen (BRS), Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division (TCU/IAM), and
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).
    \2\ The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT), Northern New England Passenger
Rail Authority (NNEPRA), and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
(SJJPA) filed a joint petition (Joint Petition). The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and State of Vermont Agency of
Transportations (VTrans) each filed separate petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 2017, FRA met with the Passenger Safety Working
Group and the System Safety Task Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) to discuss the Petitions and comments received in
response to the Petitions.\3\ FRA specifically invited its State
partners to this meeting, which was also open to the public. This
meeting was necessary for FRA to receive input from industry and the
public, and to discuss potential paths forward to respond to the
Petitions prior to FRA taking final action. During the meeting, a
representative from the Oregon Department of Transportation asked
whether the SSP final rule would be further stayed pending FRA's
development of a response to the Petitions and public input received at
the meeting. An FRA representative indicated that he anticipated a
further stay of the rule to provide time to resolve the issues raised
by the petitions. None of the meeting participants expressed opposition
to a further stay. See generally FRA-2011-0060-0046.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Attendees at the October 30, 2017, meeting included
representatives from the following organizations: ADS System Safety
Consulting, LLC; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO); American Public Transportation
Association (APTA); American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA); ATDA; Association of American Railroads (AAR);
BLET; BMWED; BRS; CCJPA; The Fertilizer Institute; Gannett Fleming
Transit and Rail Systems; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers; Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak); National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB); NCDOT; NNEPRA; San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission/Altamont Corridor Express; Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and
Transportation Workers (SMART); and United States Department of
Transportation--Transportation Safety Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to draft rule text FRA presented for discussion during
the RSAC meeting, the States indicated they would need an extended
caucus to discuss. On March 16, 2018, the Executive Committee of the
States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC) \4\ provided, and FRA
uploaded to the rulemaking docket, proposed revisions to the draft rule
text. See FRA-2011-0060-0050. FRA reviewed and considered these
suggested revisions in formulating its proposed response to the
petitions for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SPRC's website indicates it is an ``alliance of State and
Regional Transportation Officials,'' and each State petitioner
appears to be an SPRC member. See https://www.s4prc.org/state-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2019, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed certain amendments responding to the petitions for
reconsideration. See 84 FR 27215 (June 12, 2019). In the NPRM, FRA
specifically requested public comment on a proposed stay extension to
allow FRA time to review any comments on the NPRM and issue a final
rule. Id. at 27216. The deadline for submitting written comments on the
NPRM was August 12, 2019.
    FRA received thirteen comments in response to the NPRM.\5\ Comments
from NCDOT, MassDOT, and CTDOT supported extending the stay, with NCDOT
specifically requesting that FRA stay implementation of the rule until
``all applicable administrative and judicial processes are completed.''
FRA received one comment objecting to extending the stay from Amtrak,
which urged FRA to lift the stay and implement the rule immediately. No
other commenters responded to FRA's request for comment on a proposed
stay extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Comments were submitted by AAR, Amtrak, APTA, CCJPA (jointly
with INDOT, Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor
Agency, and SJJPA), the Connecticut Department of Transportation
(CTDOT), MassDOT, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, NCDOT,
NNEPRA (jointly with the State of Maine Department of
Transportation), SPRC, VTrans, Washington Department of
Transportation, and one individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA has considered Amtrak's comment opposing extension of the stay
in light of Amtrak's central role in the Nation's passenger rail
system. Nevertheless, given the number of comments received in response
to the SSP NPRM, the importance of the issues discussed therein, the
lack of opposition to the stay from all commenters except Amtrak, and
FRA's interest in addressing the issues raised in the petitions through
notice and comment rulemaking prior to requiring full compliance with
the SSP final rule, FRA believes it appropriate to extend the stay of
the rule an additional six months until March 4, 2020. Extending the
stay should provide FRA adequate time to review comments responding to
NPRM and to issue a final rule in that proceeding.

Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule is a non-significant deregulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT policies and procedures. See
44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979). The final rule is considered an Executive
Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings
are below.
    In August 2016, FRA issued the System Safety Program final rule
(2016 Final Rule) as part of its efforts to continuously improve rail
safety and to satisfy the statutory mandate in sections 103 and 109 of
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The 2016 Final Rule requires
passenger railroads to establish a program that systematically
evaluates railroad safety risks and manages those risks with the goal
of reducing the number and rates of railroad accidents, incidents,
injuries, and fatalities. Paperwork requirements are the largest burden
of the 2016 Final Rule.
    FRA believes that this final rule, which will stay the requirements
of the 2016 Final Rule until March 4, 2020, will reduce regulatory
burden on the railroad industry. By staying the requirements of the
2016 Final Rule, railroads will realize a cost savings as railroads
will not sustain any costs during the first six months of this
analysis. In addition, because this analysis discounts future costs and
this final rule will move forward all costs by six months, the present
value costs of this stay will lower the present value cost of the SSP
rulemaking. FRA

estimates this cost savings to be approximately $170,618, at a 3-
percent discount rate, and $164,240, at a 7-percent discount rate. The
following table shows the 2016 Final Rule's total cost, delayed an
additional six months past the 2019 stay extension, the implementation
date total costs, and the cost savings from the additional six-month
implementation date delay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Present  value     Present  value
                                           (7%)               (3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 Final Rule, total cost.......         $2,327,223         $3,412,649
Cost savings from six-month delay.            164,240            170,618
2016 Final Rule, total cost with            2,162,983          3,242,031
 cost savings from six-month delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., and
Executive Order 13272, 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small
entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA Administrator
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This final rule will affect passenger railroads, but will have a
beneficial effect, lessening the burden on any small railroad.
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as including a small
business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is not
dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small
businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a ``small
entity'' in the railroad industry is a for profit ``linehaul railroad''
that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a ``short line railroad'' with
fewer than 1,500 employees, or a ``commuter rail system'' with annual
receipts of less than $15.0 million dollars. See ``Size Eligibility
Provisions and Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121, subpart A. Additionally, 5
U.S.C. 601(5) defines as ``small entities'' governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts with populations less than 50,000. Federal agencies may adopt
their own size standards for small entities, in consultation with SBA
and in conjunction with public comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA
has published a final statement of agency policy that formally
establishes ``small entities'' or ``small businesses'' as being
railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers that meet the
revenue requirements of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR
1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual
revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions
that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9,
2003), codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209. The $20-million limit
is based on the Surface Transportation Board's revenue threshold for a
Class III railroad. Railroad revenue is adjusted for inflation by
applying a revenue deflator formula in accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
FRA is using this definition for this rulemaking.
    For purposes of this analysis, this final rule will apply to 31
commuter or other short-haul passenger railroads and two intercity
passenger railroads, Amtrak and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC).
Neither is considered a small entity. Amtrak serves populations well in
excess of 50,000, and the ARC is owned by the State of Alaska, which
has a population well in excess of 50,000.
    Based on the definition of ``small entity,'' only one passenger
railroad is considered a small entity: The Hawkeye Express (operated by
the Iowa Northern Railway Company). As the final rule is not
significant, this final rule will merely provide this entity with
additional compliance time without introducing any additional burden.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(b), the
FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A substantial number of small entities may be impacted by this
regulation; however, any impact will be minimal and positive.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new collection of information requirements contained
in this final rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an information collection submission
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required. The
record keeping and reporting requirements already contained in the SSP
final rule were approved by OMB on October 5, 2016. The information
collection requirements thereby became effective when they were
approved by OMB. The OMB approval number is OMB No. 2130-0599, and OMB
approval expires on October 31, 2019.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency
may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined
that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined that this rule
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local

governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of
Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Environmental Assessment

    FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders,
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this rule
is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. See 64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999.
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this rule is
not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2
U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13211 and has determined that this regulatory action is
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
    Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. See 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31,
2017). FRA determined this regulatory action will not burden the
development or use of domestically produced energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 270

    Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, System safety.

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA extends the stay of the SSP
final rule published August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53850) until March 4, 2020.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106-20107, 20118-20119, 20156,
21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Ronald Louis Batory,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-18789 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46576-46579]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21407]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81772; File No. SR-ISE-2017-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
716(c) on the Block Order Mechanism

September 29, 2017.
    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 September 18, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 716(c) to more accurately
describe the allocation methodology used in the Block Order Mechanism,
add language regarding how the block execution price is determined, and
describe the content of the broadcast message disseminated to members
upon the entry of an order into the mechanism.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.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 Block Order Mechanism is a process by which a member can obtain
liquidity for the execution of block-sized orders,\3\ defined as orders
for fifty contracts or more.\4\ When an order is entered in the Block
Order Mechanism, that order is exposed to members who are given an
opportunity to respond with the prices and sizes at which they would be
willing to trade with the block-sized order.\5\ The exposure period is
designated by the Exchange via circular, but must be no less than 100
milliseconds and no more than 1 second.\6\ At the conclusion of the
exposure period, either an execution will occur at a single block
execution price,\7\ or the order will be cancelled.\8\ The purpose of
the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 716(c) to more accurately
describe the allocation methodology used in the Block Order Mechanism,
add language regarding how the block execution price is determined, and
describe the content of the broadcast message disseminated to members
upon the entry of an order into the mechanism. The Exchange believes
that these changes will increase transparency around the operation of
the Block Order Mechanism to the benefit of members and market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 716(c).
    \4\ See Rule 716(a).
    \5\ A ``Response'' is an electronic message that is sent by
members in response to a broadcast message. See Rule 716(b).
    \6\ See Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 716.
    \7\ Responses and orders and quotes on the order book at the
time the block order is executed that are priced better than the
block execution price are executed at the block execution price. See
Rule 716(c)(2)(i).
    \8\ See Rule 716(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) provides that Responses, quotes, and
Professional

Orders \9\ at the block execution price will participate in the
execution of the block-size order according to Rule 713(e)--i.e., the
Exchange's regular allocation rule. As implemented today, however,
interest that is executed in the Block Order Mechanism follows the
customer priority pro-rata allocation methodology designed for the
Exchange's auction mechanisms, including, for example, the Facilitation
Mechanism,\10\ Solicited Order Mechanism,\11\ and Price Improvement
Mechanism,\12\ with the exception that those two-sided auction
mechanisms also allocate contracts against the contra order. This
auction allocation methodology is similar to the Exchange's regular
allocation methodology but does not provide enhanced allocations to the
Primary Market Maker (``PMM'') pursuant to Rule 713(e) and
Supplementary Material .01(b) to Rule 713.\13\ The Exchange therefore
proposes to amend Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) to provide that, at the block
execution price, Priority Customer Orders and Priority Customer
Responses will be executed first in time priority, and then quotes,
Professional Orders, and Professional Responses will participate in the
execution of the block-size order based upon the percentage of the
total number of contracts available at the block execution price that
is represented by the size of the quote, Professional Order, or
Professional Response. In addition, the Exchange proposes to specify in
Rule 716(c)(2)(i) that interest that is priced better than the block
execution price is executed in full. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to amend this rule to state that bids (offers) on the Exchange
at the time the block order is executed that are priced higher (lower)
than the block execution price, as well as Responses that are priced
higher (lower) than the block execution price, will be executed in full
at the block execution price. Although Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) described
above explains how allocations are handled at the block execution
price, the Exchange believes that the additional clarity that interest
that is priced better than the block execution price is executed in
full would be helpful to members. With these two proposed changes, Rule
716(c) will more accurately describe the allocation methodology used in
the Block Order Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Professional Order'' means an order that is for
the account of a person or entity that is not a Priority Customer.
See Rule 100(a)(37C).
    \10\ See Rule 716(d).
    \11\ See Rule 716(e).
    \12\ See Rule 723.
    \13\ Supplementary Material .01(b) to Rule 713 provides that, if
the PMM is quoting at the best price, it has participation rights
equal to the greater of the proportion of the total size at the best
price represented by the size of its quote, or a percentage
allocation entitlement based on the number of other Professional
Orders and market maker quotations at the best price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add language to Rule
716(c)(2)(i) that explains the price at which orders entered into the
Block Order Mechanism are executed. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to state that Responses, orders, and quotes will be executed
at a single block execution price that is the price for the block-size
order at which the maximum number of contracts can be executed
consistent with the member's instruction. For example, if a member
enters a block-sized order to buy 100 contracts at $1.00 into the Block
Order Mechanism, and members enter Response A to sell 50 contracts at
$0.90 and Response B to sell 40 contracts at $0.95, the block execution
price would be $0.95 as this is the price at which the maximum number
of contracts could be executed. The block-sized order and both
Responses would then be executed at this single block execution price.
Responses A and B would be executed in full since there is sufficient
size to execute both Responses against the block-size order. In
addition, if two other members also enter Responses C (Priority
Customer) and D (non-Priority Customer) to sell at $0.98 for 10
contracts each, the block execution price would be $0.98 as additional
contracts could be executed at that price. In that instance, Responses
A and B, which are priced better than the block execution price, would
be executed in full, while Responses B and C, which are priced at the
block execution price, would participate in accordance with the
allocation methodology described in this proposed rule change--i.e.,
the remaining 10 contracts would go to Response C, which is a Priority
Customer Response. The Block Order Mechanism is designed to provide an
opportunity for members to receive liquidity for their block-sized
orders and therefore trades at a price that allows the maximum number
of contracts of such order to be executed against Responses entered to
trade against the block-size order and interest on the Exchange's order
book. The Exchange believes that describing how the block execution
price is determined in Rule 716(c)(2)(i) will increase transparency
around pricing of executions in the Block Order Mechanism.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add language to Rule 716(c)(1) to
describe the content of the broadcast message sent to members upon the
entry of an order into the Block Order Mechanism. In particular, the
Exchange proposes to specify that this broadcast message includes the
series, and may include price, size and/or side, as specified by the
member entering the order. Similar language is included in the Block
Order Mechanism Rule on the Exchange's affiliates, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``GEMX'') and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX''), which operate in the same way
as ISE's Block Order Mechanism.\14\ The Exchange therefore believes
that this change will increase transparency around the content of the
broadcast message and promote consistency across the rulebooks of its
affiliated exchanges that offer identical functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See GEMX and MRX Rule 716(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\16\ because 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 and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the allocation
language in Rule 716(c)(2)(i)-(ii) are consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest as the proposed allocation
language more accurately reflects the Exchange's process for allocating
contracts executed in the Block Order Mechanism. Although the
Exchange's allocation rule for the Block Order Mechanism currently
references the allocation process for regular trading, the allocation
methodology does not include certain parts of the regular allocation
procedure. In particular, the Exchange does not grant any special
allocation to the PMM for interest executed in the Block Order
Mechanism. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to not provide
an enhanced allocation entitlement to the PMM for interest executed in
the Block Order Mechanism, as the Block Order Mechanism provides an
auction process that does not rely on market maker quoting and other
obligations to source liquidity. Furthermore, the Exchange

believes that it is helpful to explain in this rule that interest that
is priced better than the block execution price would be executed in
full. The allocation process used for the Block Order Mechanism is
similar to how the Exchange allocates contracts in other auction
mechanisms, including, for example, the Facilitation Mechanism,
Solicited Order Mechanism, and Price Improvement Mechanism, with the
exception that those two-sided auction mechanisms also allocate
contracts against the contra order.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra notes 10-12 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to describe
how the block execution price is determined is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as this change will
increase transparency around the price at which interest is executed in
the Block Order Mechanism. As explained above, the Block Order
Mechanism is designed to provide an opportunity for members to receive
liquidity for their block-sized orders and therefore trades at a price
that allows the maximum number of contracts of such order to be
executed against Responses entered to trade against the block-size
order and interest on the Exchange's order book. The Exchange believes
that describing how the block execution price is determined in Rule
716(c)(2)(i) will increase transparency around pricing of executions in
the Block Order Mechanism.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule
716(c)(1) is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as it will provide transparency to members about the content
of the broadcast message sent to members upon the entry of an order
into the Block Order Mechanism. Currently, the broadcast message
includes the series, and may include price, size and/or side, as
specified by the member entering the order. The Exchange is not
proposing any changes to the content of the broadcast message but wants
to make this clear in its rules, which, with this change, will be
consistent with the rules of its affiliates, GEMX and MRX.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is designed to correct the Exchange's rules to more
accurately reflect the handling of auctions in the Block Order
Mechanism. No changes are proposed to the operation of the Exchange's
trading system, and no members will be impacted by the proposed rule,
which merely reflects current functionality offered to members that
trade in the Block Order Mechanism. The proposed rule change is
therefore not designed to impose any significant burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
notes that a waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to correct its
Block Order Mechanism rules to reflect the current functionality of the
system without undue delay. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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-ISE-2017-84 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-ISE-2017-84. 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-ISE-2017-84 and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21407 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23912]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-217-001]

Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Proposed
Compliance Filing

April 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 10, 2006, Trans-Union Interstate
Pipeline, L.P. (Trans-Union), tendered for filing as part of its FERC
Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an
effective date of February 7, 2006:

First Revised Sheet No. 106
First Revised Sheet Nos. 121-124

    Trans-Union further states that it has served copies of its filing
on all affected customers and all interested state regulatory
commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6166 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53804-53805]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-62-000]

Fern Solar LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding
and Refund Effective Date

    On August 25, 2020, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL20-62-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2018), instituting an investigation into whether Fern
Solar's proposed Rate Schedule may be unjust and unreasonable. Fern
Solar LLC, 172 FERC 61,160 (2020).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL20-62-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL20-62-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2019), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests

and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: August 25, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19107 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P