[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75590-75593]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1330; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) (previously COLUMBIA or
LANCAIR) Models LC40-550FG, LC41-550FG, and LC42-550FG airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports that during maximum braking, if the
brakes lock up and a skid occurs, a severe oscillatory yawing motion or
``wheel walk'' may develop, which could result in further significant
structural damage to the airplane. This proposed AD would require
insertions into the pilot's operating handbook (POH) and the airplane
maintenance manuals (AMM) regarding proper use of the brakes and
inspection of the aft fuselage. We are proposing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 4,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
www.cessnasupport.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita,
KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to

an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No.
FAA-2012-1330; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-006-AD'' at the beginning
of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://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

    We have received several reports of structural damage to Cessna
Models LC41-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes due to ``wheel walking''
anomalies. These incidents were all precipitated by pilots applying
maximum braking at high speeds, leading to locked wheels and prolonged
tire skidding. The main landing gear struts developed a severe
oscillatory yawing motion or ``wheel walking'' as the airplane
decelerated.
    This ``wheel walking'' motion resulted in significant structural
damage to the aft fuselage skin, affecting the inside skin and adjacent
structure near the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in further significant
structural damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require insertions into the pilot's
operating handbook (POH) and the airplane maintenance manuals (AMM)
regarding proper use of the brakes and inspection of the aft fuselage.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 726 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost          product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insertion of manuals and          4.5 work-hours x $85 per  Not applicable....         $382.50         $277,695
 inspection of aft fuselage.       hour = $382.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-1330; Directorate
Identifier 2012-CE-006-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 4, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the following Cessna Aircraft Company
(previously COLUMBIA or LANCAIR) Models LC40-550FG, LC41-550FG, and
LC42-550FG airplanes that are certificated in any category:
    (i) LC40-550FG (Model 300), serial numbers 40001 through 40079;
    (ii) LC41-550FG (Model 400), serial numbers 41001 through 41108,
41501 through 41533, 41563 through 41800, and 411001 through 411161;
and
    (iii) LC42-550FG (Model 350), serial numbers 42001 through
42084, 42501 through 42569, and 421001 through 421020.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5300, Fuselage Structure (General).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that during maximum braking, if
the brakes lock up and a skid occurs, a severe oscillatory yawing
motion or ``wheel walk'' may develop, which could result in
significant structural damage to the airplane. We are proposing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 3 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, incorporate
figure 1 of paragraph (g) of this AD into the applicable Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH)/FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM),
Section 2, Limitations (Other Limitations). This may also be done by
inserting a copy of this AD into the POH/AFM.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21DE12.001

    (2) Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD or within the next 3 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first, incorporate figure 2 of paragraph (g) of
this AD into the applicable POH/AFM at the end of each of the
following sections:
    (i) Section 4, Normal Procedures (Amplified Procedures):
Landings, Normal Landings; and
    (ii) Section 4, end of paragraph: Short Field Landings.
    This may also be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the
POH/AFM.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21DE12.002

    (3) Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD or within the next 3 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first, incorporate the Cessna maintenance
manual revisions for the appropriate airplane from the following
list:
    (i) Model LC40-550FG, Cessna Maintenance Manual 300MM02,
Revision 2, Chapter 20-95-00, section titled ``Tap Testing--
Description and Operation''; Chapter 20-95-02, section titled
``Structural Inspections--Description and Operation''; and Chapter
53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage Components--Adjustment/Test'';
all dated July 1, 2012.
    (ii) Model LC41-550FG/T240, Cessna Maintenance Manual 400MM02,
Revision 2, dated July 1, 2012, Chapter 20-90-00, section titled
``Tap Testing--Description and Operation''; Chapter 20-95-00,
section titled ``Structural Inspections--Description and
Operation''; and Chapter 53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage
Components--Adjustment/Test''; all dated July 1, 2012.
    (iii) Model LC42-550FG, Cessna Maintenance Manual 350MM02,
Revision 2, dated July 1, 2012, Chapter 20-95-00, section titled
``Tap Testing--Description and Operation''; Chapter 20-95-02,
section titled ``Structural Inspections--Description and
Operation''; and Chapter 53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage
Components--Adjustment/Test''; all dated July 1, 2012.

    Note for paragraph (g)(3) of this AD: We recommend you replace
your current maintenance manual in its entirety with the appropriate
Cessna Maintenance Manual 300MM02, 350MM02, or 400MM02, all Revision
2, all dated July 1, 2012, that would apply to your airplane.

    (4) The actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot)
holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered
into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v).
The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380,
or 135.439.
    (5) At the next annual inspection after the effective date of
this AD or within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, and prior to further flight if a
severe oscillatory yawing motion as described in figure 1 of
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has occurred, inspect the aft fuselage
following the aft fuselage inspection procedures for the appropriate
model of airplane as follows:

    (i) LC40-550FG (Model 300), Cessna Maintenance Manual 300MM02,
Revision 2, dated July 1, 2012:
    (a) Tap Testing: Chapter 20-95-00, section titled ``Tap
Testing--Description and Operation'';
    (b) Visual Testing: Chapter 20-95-02, section titled
``Structural Inspections--Description and Operation''; and/or
    (c) Fuselage: Chapter 53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage
Components--Adjustment/Test.''
    (ii) Model LC41-550FG/T240, Cessna Maintenance Manual 400MM02,
Revision 2, dated July 1, 2012:
    (a) Tap Testing: Chapter 20-90-00, section titled ``Tap
Testing--Description and Operation'';
    (b) Visual Testing: Chapter 20-95-00, section titled
``Structural Inspections--Description and Operation''; and/or
    (c) Fuselage: Chapter 53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage
Components--Adjustment/Test.''
    (iii) Model LC42-550FG, Cessna Maintenance Manual 350MM02,
Revision 2, dated July 1, 2012:
    (a) Tap Testing: Chapter 20-95-00, section titled ``Tap
Testing--Description and Operation'';
    (b) Visual Testing: Chapter 20-95-02, section titled
``Structural Inspections--Description and Operation''; and/or
    (c) Fuselage: Chapter 53-70-00, section titled ``Fuselage
Components--Adjustment/Test.''
    (6) If any damaged or suspect areas are found during any aft
fuselage inspection required by paragraph (g)(5) of this AD, before
further flight, contact Cessna Customer Service by phone at (316)
517-5800 or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER> for an FAA-approved repair and
perform the repair.

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

    Cessna Aircraft Company released the following POH/AFM Temporary
Revisions via Cessna Service Bulletin SB 10-11-01, dated August 17,
2010. Incorporation of the applicable document below is considered
compliance with the POH/AFM change requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this AD. The affected POH/AFM Temporary Revisions are:
     Cessna Corvalis 300: RA050001-O TR03-06, dated August
13, 2010;
     Cessna Corvalis 350: RB050005-I TR08-11 (Garmin G1000-
equipped) and RB050000-R TR02-05 (Avidyne Entegra-equipped), dated
August 13, 2010; and
     Cessna Corvalis 400: RC050005-I TR10-13 (Garmin G1000-
equipped) and RC050002-G TR02-05 (Avidyne Entegra-equipped), dated
August 13, 2010.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gary Park,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, KS
67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 17, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-30753 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69624-69625]
[DOCID:fr19no08-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2354-103]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 2354-103.
    c. Date Filed: October 24, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: North Georgia Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The LaPrades Marina is located in the Wildcat Creek
cove on Lake Burton in Rabun County, Georgia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and Sec.  799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Wanda Greene, Compliance & Forestry
Manager, Georgia Power Company, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: December 12, 2008.
    k. Description of Request: Georgia Power Company requests approval
to permit Vinings Marine Group, LLC, to: (1) Remove two existing docks
with a total capacity of 62 watercraft; (2) remove 7 existing
boathouses; (3) construct four new covered boat docks with a total
capacity of 140 watercraft; (4) construct one new uncovered dock with a
capacity of 40 watercraft; and (5) construct 16 new boathouses. The
existing boat ramp and two fuel docks would remain. No dredging is
proposed. In developing the application, the licensee consulted with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Wildlife Resources and Law Enforcement Divisions, and the
Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-2354) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' ``PROTEST,'' OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-2354-103). All

documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene
must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified
in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27375 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18608-18609]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06850]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88495; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Program Related to FINRA Rule
11892 (Clearly Erroneous Transactions in Exchange-Listed Securities)

March 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 18, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to extend the current pilot program related to
FINRA Rule 11892 (Clearly Erroneous Transactions in Exchange-Listed
Securities) (``Clearly Erroneous Transaction Pilot'' or ``Pilot'')
until October 20, 2020.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA is proposing a rule change to extend the current pilot
program related to FINRA Rule 11892 governing clearly erroneous
transactions in exchange-listed securities until the close of business
on October 20, 2020. Extending the Pilot would provide FINRA and the
national securities exchanges additional time to consider a permanent
proposal for clearly erroneous transaction reviews.
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to FINRA Rule 11892 that, among other things: (i) Provided for
uniform treatment of clearly erroneous[thinsp]transaction reviews in
multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii)
reduced the ability of FINRA to deviate from the objective standards
set forth in the rule.\4\ In 2013, FINRA adopted a provision designed
to address the operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (``Plan'').\5\
Finally, in 2014, FINRA adopted two additional provisions addressing
(i) erroneous transactions that occur over one or more trading days
that were based on the same fundamentally incorrect or grossly
misinterpreted information resulting in a severe valuation error; and
(ii) a disruption or malfunction in the operation of the facilities of
a self-regulatory organization or responsible single plan processor in
connection with the transmittal or receipt of a trading halt.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62885 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56641 (September 16, 2010) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2010-032).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68808 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9083 (February 7, 2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-012).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2014-021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2019, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to untie the
effectiveness of the Clearly Erroneous Transaction Pilot from the
effectiveness of the Plan, and to extend the Pilot's effectiveness to
the close of business on October 18, 2019.\7\ On October 18, 2019,
FINRA filed a proposed rule change to

extend the Pilot's effectiveness until April 20, 2020.\8\ FINRA now is
proposing to further extend the Pilot until October 20, 2020, so that
market participants can continue to benefit from the more objective
clearly erroneous transaction standards under the Pilot.\9\ Extending
the Pilot also would provide more time to permit FINRA and the other
self-regulatory organizations to consider what changes, if any, to the
clearly erroneous transaction rules are appropriate--particularly in
light of the permanent approval of the Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85612 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16107 (April 17, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2019-011).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87344 (October 18,
2019), 84 FR 57076 (October 24, 2019) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2019-025).
    \9\ If the pilot period is not either extended or approved as
permanent, the version of Rule 11892 prior to SR-FINRA-2010-032
shall be in effect, and the amendments set forth in SR-FINRA-2014-
021 and the provisions of Supplementary Material .03 of the rule
shall be null and void.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (Order Approving the Eighteenth
Amendment to the National Market System Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The proposed rule change will become operative 30 days
after the date of filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change promotes
just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency
and uniformity across markets concerning the review of transactions as
clearly erroneous. FINRA believes that extending the Pilot under FINRA
Rule 11892, until October 20, 2020, would help assure consistent
results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S. equities markets,
thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors
and the public interest. Based on the foregoing, FINRA believes the
Clearly Erroneous Transaction Pilot should continue to be in effect
while FINRA and the national securities exchanges consider a permanent
proposal for clearly erroneous transaction reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the
continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous
transaction rules across the U.S. equities markets while FINRA and the
national securities exchanges consider further amendments to these
rules in light of the approval of the Plan as permanent. FINRA
understands that the national securities exchanges also will file
similar proposals to extend their clearly erroneous execution pilot
programs, as applicable. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to
ensure consistency across market centers without implicating any
competitive issues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-FINRA-2020-008 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-FINRA-2020-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2020-008 and should be submitted
on or before April 23, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06850 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1. Note that this uses Salem results based on an extrapolation relevant baseline ( without screens) and, therefore, differs from Salem results in the case study ( with screens). Memorandum To: Lynne Tudor, U. S. EPA From: Tom Ottem and Bob Raucher, Stratus Consulting Inc.

Date: 6/ 13/ 02 Subject: Example calculations for national extrapolation Per the request of Jim Laity of OMB, this memorandum presents a detailed explanation of how the case study results are extrapolated to national benefits estimates. To keep this brief, we show the step by step calculations for estimating benefits from reducing impingement at in scope facilities located on non Gulf estuaries.

All monetary values in the memo are reported in thousands of 2001 dollars.

1. Extrapolation Based on Flow The first step in the flow ( or MGD) extrapolation is to estimate the national baseline loss for all in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities based on the Salem case study results and average daily flows at all in scope facilities. This flow extrapolation relies on two key pieces of data that are reported in Tables C3 1 and C3 2 in the Economics and Benefits Analysis, and is calculated as follows:

Salem baseline loss estimate middle case reported in Table C3 2; this is the average ( midpoint) of the benefits transfer/ RUM estimate1 $ 703.80 Salem normalized flow ( MGD) % of all in scope Estuary NonGulf flows; calculated from CBI; reported in Table C3 1 4.39480% National flow based estimate of baseline loss from impingement ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) = Salem loss/ Salem normalized flow $ 16,014.38 The next step is to estimate the values for Table C3 3. In this case, all the case study values are simply reported in the table. The values for " All Other In Scope" facilities are calculated using the percentage of national flow ( by waterbody type) at these facilities. These are the values reported in Table C3 3 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis. Stratus Consulting Memorandum 2. Salem, Brayton Point, Contra Costa, and Pittsburg account for 7.1% of flows at non Gulf estuary in scope facilities. Page 2 Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope = national extrapolation estimate * % of flow in all other in scope facilities2 = $ 16,014.38 * 0.92885 $ 14,875 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 44,022 2. Extrapolation Based on Angling Days The first step in the extrapolation is to estimate the national baseline loss for all in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities based on the Salem case study results and estimated angling activity within a 120 mile radius of the facility. This angling extrapolation relies on two key pieces of data that are reported in Tables C3 1 and C3 2, and is calculated as follows:

Salem baseline loss estimate middle case reported in Table C3 2; this is the average ( midpoint) of the benefits transfer/ RUM estimate $ 703.80 Salem percentage of in scope angling base % of all in scope estuary NonGulf angling days; calculated from 1999 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Based Recreation; reported in Table C3 1 2.10301% National angling based estimate of baseline loss from impingement ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) = Salem loss/ Salem normalized flow $ 33,466.3 2 The next step is to estimate the values for Table C3 3. In this case, all the case study values are simply reported in the table. The values for " All Other In Scope" facilities are calculated using Stratus Consulting Memorandum 3. Salem, Brayton Point, Contra Costa, and Pittsburg account for 5.1% of the " angling days" associated with inscope facilities in non Gulf estuaries. All other facilities therefore account for 94.9%. Page 3 the percentage of national angling days ( by waterbody type) at these facilities. These are the values reported in Table C3 4 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis.

Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope = national extrapolation estimate * % of angling days at all other in scope facilities3 = $ 33,466.32* 0.94888 $ 31,755 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 60,903 3. Best Estimate Baseline Loss The calculation of the best estimates varies by water body type. For the Estuary NonGulf, Estuary Gulf, and Freshwater categories, the average of the flow based and angling based extrapolations was used. For the Great Lakes and Ocean categories, the flow based extrapolation was used exclusively. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 4 Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope average of middle case values from Tables C3 3 and C3 4 $ 24,835 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 57,802 4. Benefits There are two steps to calculating benefits from the baseline loss estimates developed in steps 1 3. First, the loss estimates are weighted using sample weights developed by Abt Associates for use in the cost analysis. Second, estimated percent reductions in I& E are applied to the estimated baseline loss ( i. e., benefits equal reductions in loss that are assumed to be directly proportional to the reduction in I& E estimated for each regulatory option).

4.1 Sample Weighted Benefits There are 550 in scope facilities for this rule making. Of the 550, a total of 539 completed EPA's facility survey. To estimate the costs at all 550 facilities, EPA developed sample weights. To develop benefits estimates that are consistent with the cost estimates, we applied the same weights to our benefits estimates. The weights for all facilities are reported below. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 5 Facility Waterbody type Weight Salem Estuary  NonGulf 1 Brayton Point Estuary  NonGulf 1.111184516 Contra Costa Estuary  NonGulf 1.225968333 Pittsburg Estuary  NonGulf 1.111184516 All other in scope Estuary  NonGulf 1.065172214 4 Tampa facilities Estuary  Gulf 1 All other in scope Estuary  Gulf 1.000506073 29 Ohio facilities Freshwater 1.008699453 Monroe Freshwater 1.013157895 All other in scope Freshwater 1.009608142 JR Whiting Great Lake 1 All other in scope Great Lake 1 Pilgrim Nuclear Ocean 1.225968333 Seabrook Nuclear Ocean 1 All other in scope Ocean 1.062051309 Applying these weights to the best estimate baseline loss estimates from step 3 yields sampleweighted baseline loss estimates. These are the baseline losses used in calculating benefits from the proposed rule.

Facility Sample weighted impingement baseline loss estimate Salem = $ 704 * 1 $ 704 Brayton Point = $ 450 * 1.111184516 $ 500 Contra Costa = $ 5,726 * 1.225968333 $ 7,020 Pittsburg = $ 22,268 * 1.111184516 $ 24,744 All other in scope = $ 24,835 * 1.065172214 $ 24,835 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 57,802 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 6 4.2 Estimated Percent Reductions in I& E To determine the benefits of the rulemaking, EPA estimated the percent reductions in I& E at each facility under the various policy options. In a separate assessment, EPA estimated the percent reduction in impingement and entrainment for each in scope facility, for each regulatory option. Using these estimates, we calculated a weighted average percent reduction for each waterbody type using average daily flow as the weight. These weighted average reductions are presented in Tables C4 1 and C4 3. The estimated reductions for the Estuary NonGulf category are reported below.

To estimate benefits attributable to the rule, we multiplied the estimated percent reduction and the sample weighted baseline loss for each waterbody category. For example, the benefits calculations for impingement reductions in non Gulf estuaries are as follows:

Option Estimated % impingement reduction Estimated benefits (=$ 57,802 * % impingement reduction) Option 1 64.415% $ 37,233 Option 2 47.493% $ 27,452 Option 3 33.204% $ 19,193 Option 3a 25.526% $ 14,754 Option 4 41.390% $ 23,924 Option 5 97.468% $ 56,338 Option 6 84.386% $ 48,777