[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48119-48125]
[DOCID:fr18au08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1 and 33

[Docket No.: FAA-2007-27899; Amendment No. 33-25]
RIN 2120-AI96

Airworthiness Standards: Rotorcraft Turbine Engines One-Engine-
Inoperative (OEI) Ratings, Type Certification Standards

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending the One-
Engine-Inoperative (OEI) rating definitions and type certification
standards for 30-second OEI, 2-minute OEI, and 30-minute OEI ratings
for rotorcraft turbine engines. This action revises the ratings'
standards to reflect recent analyses of the ratings' use and lessons
learned from completed engine certifications and service experience.
This rule harmonizes FAA type certification standards for these ratings
with the requirements of the European Aviation Safety Agency in the
Certification Specifications for Engines and with proposed requirements
for Transport Canada Civil Aviation, thus simplifying airworthiness
approvals for import and export.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorina Mihail, Engine and Propeller
Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5229;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated 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, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This rule is within the scope of that
authority because it updates the existing regulations for type
certification standards for OEI ratings for rotorcraft turbine engines.

Background

    On May 4, 2007, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Airworthiness Standards: Rotorcraft Turbine Engines
One-Engine-Inoperative (OEI) Ratings, Type Certification Standards''
(72 FR 25207). The comment period for the NPRM closed on August 2,
2007.
    The OEI power ratings provide rotorcraft with higher than takeoff
and maximum continuous power ratings needed when one engine of a multi-
engine rotorcraft fails or is shut down during flight, such as during
takeoff, cruise, or landing. These OEI power rating powers enable the
rotorcraft to continue safe flight until it reaches a suitable landing
site. Part 33 prescribes airworthiness standards for 30-second OEI, 2-
minute OEI, 2\1/2\-minute OEI, 30-minute OEI, and continuous OEI
ratings for the issuance of type certificates for rotorcraft turbine
engines. All OEI ratings are optional ratings that engine manufacturers
may select from those specified in Sec.  33.7.
    This final rule harmonizes with the corresponding airworthiness
standards for OEI ratings of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
without reducing the existing level of safety.

Summary of Comments

    Three commenters, including a turbine engine manufacturer, General
Electric (GE); a foreign aviation authority, Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); and an industry association, Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA); responded to the NPRM request for comments. The GE
and AIA comments are identical. TCCA had a number of comments. All of
the commenters generally supported the proposed changes. All comments
included suggested changes, as discussed in the discussion of the final
rule below.

    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the
proposal:

 Instrument connection.
 Fuel system.
 Endurance test.
 Engine overtemperature test.
 Airworthiness Limitations Section.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to
the comments on the proposal.

Instrument Connection

    We revised Sec.  33.29(c) to specify that the applicant must
provide a means or a provision for a means to satisfy the requirements
for the use of the defined 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. The
applicant, for example an engine manufacturer, may satisfy ``a means''
by providing a recorder to record entry into the OEI power bands.
Alternatively, the applicant may fulfill ``a provision for a means'' by
specifying that the installer provide a recorder to record entry into
the OEI power bands. We also added a new Sec.  33.29(c)(4) to specify
the requirements for verification of the proper operation of
indicating, recording, and retrieval systems.
    The TCCA commented that existing Sec.  33.29(c) should not be
changed because full compliance to crew interface would be difficult to
achieve at engine certification. The TCCA claimed the proposed changes
to Sec.  33.29(c) are redundant to the requirements of Sec. Sec.
27.1305 and 29.1305.
    We believe the requirement for the engine to have either a means or
a provision for a means is engine specific and can be met at engine
certification. Advisory circulars will provide further guidance. The
FAA harmonized this change with EASA's rule. Section 33.29(c) is
adopted without change.
    We also proposed to add Sec.  33.29(d) which limits resetting the
recordings required by paragraph (c) to only while on the ground.
    The TCCA believes that compliance to proposed Sec.  33.29(d) can
only be found at rotorcraft, not engine, certification and this
section, therefore, should not be part of engine requirements.
    The FAA partially agrees with this comment. We determined that
Sec.  33.29(d) should apply to Sec.  33.29(c)(2) and (c)(3) but not to
Sec.  33.29(c)(1) and (c)(4). Specifically, we found that in-flight
resetting of the pilot alert required under (c)(1) and the routine
verification required under (c)(4) should not be addressed by engine
regulations. We retained the Sec.  33.29(d) requirement that recordings
under (c)(2) and (c)(3) should not be reset in-flight because we find
these requirements should be met at engine certification. We,
therefore, modified Sec.  33.29(d) in the final rule to refer only to
Sec.  33.29(c)(2) and (c)(3).

Fuel System

    We proposed a revision to Sec.  33.67(d) to clarify the intent of
``automatic control'' of the 30-second OEI power is to control the
engine operating conditions, which should not exceed the engine's
operating limits. We clarified in the preamble of the NPRM that the
applicant's design, however, should not limit the time interval at
which OEI power is used. This design feature enables the pilot to
exceed OEI time limits to safely land the rotorcraft in an in-flight
emergency as permitted by Sec.  91.3(b).
    GE requested clarification that the OEI power limit can be exceeded
in the event of an emergency under the requirements of Sec.  33.67(d).
    The intent of Sec.  33.67(d) is that use of 30-second OEI power
should be subject to automatic control and should not be exceeded. This
automatic control requirement is intended to avoid the need for the
pilot to monitor engine parameters, such as output shaft torque or
power, output shaft speed, gas producer speed, and gas path temperature
during OEI operation. Once the automatic control system is activated,
it automatically controls the 30-second OEI power and prevents the
engine from exceeding its specified operating limits. Section 33.67(d)
is adopted as proposed.

Endurance Test

    The amended Sec.  33.87 reduces test complexity and adds test
flexibility under the revisions to Sec.  33.87(a); harmonizes the test
schedule under Sec.  33.87(c) with that of the Certification
Specifications for Engines (CS-E); and clarifies the test schedule and
test sequence under Sec.  33.87(f).
    We proposed to revise Sec.  33.87(a)(5) so the maximum air bleed
for engine and aircraft services under Sec.  33.87(a)(5) need not be
used for the final 120-minute test required under Sec.  33.87(f)(1)
through (f)(8) if the applicant can show by testing, or analysis based
on testing, that the validity of the endurance test is preserved. This
proposed revision was intended to reduce test complexity and improve
the flexibility needed to attain the key parameters (speed, temperature
and torque) during the tests.
    We also proposed to revise Sec.  33.87(a)(6) to allow the applicant
to run the final 120-minute test under Sec. Sec.  33.87(f)(1) through
(f)(8) without loading the accessory drives and mounting attachments if
the applicant can substantiate that the durability of any accessory
drive or engine component is not significantly affected.
    The TCCA commented that Sec.  33.87(a)(5) should not require the
maximum air bleed and Sec.  33.87(a)(6) should not require loading of
accessory drive and mounting attachments to be part of the test
configuration for Sec.  33.87(f) test sequences. The TCCA recommended
changes to Sec.  33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) that do not mention ``120-
minute,'' which is the minimum time duration of the test required under
paragraph (f).
    We have revised Sec.  33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) in the final rule by
removing references to ``120-minute.'' These changes clarify the
exceptions specified in Sec.  33.87(a)(5) and (a)(6) are for the entire
test duration performed under Sec.  33.87(f).
    GE recommended changes to Sec.  33.87 it believes would ensure FAA
requirements are not more severe than EASA's for the endurance test
requirements under Sec.  33.87(a)(3) and (a)(7).
    We find that GE's recommendation would substantially affect Sec.
33.87 requirements for all non-OEI engine ratings. Such a change is
beyond the scope of this rule.

Engine Overtemperature Test

    We proposed to revise Sec.  33.88(a) to clarify that these
requirements apply to all engine ratings, including all OEI ratings
other than the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, regardless of
whether the engine is equipped with an automatic temperature control.
    The TCCA disagreed with our proposed change to Sec.  33.88(a)
because it claimed the proposed new language could result in more tests
being performed than is intended by the proposal.
    We agree that the proposed language in Sec.  33.88(a) could be
interpreted to also apply to 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings and
result in unintended testing. We are, therefore, withdrawing the
proposed change to Sec.  33.88(a). We have, however, revised Sec.
33.88(b) in the final rule to clarify that testing under Sec.  33.88(a)
applies to all engine ratings, except for 30-second OEI and 2-minute
OEI ratings.
    The TCCA commented that Sec. Sec.  33.88(b) and 33.93(b)(2) should
refer to ``mandatory inspections and maintenance actions.''
    We find that Sec.  33.4 and Appendix A to Part 33 adequately
reference mandatory inspections and maintenance actions.

Airworthiness Limitations Section, Appendix A

    We are revising Appendix A, Section A33.4, Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS), by adding a new paragraph for rotorcraft
engines having 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. For these
engines, we require the applicant to prescribe mandatory post-flight
inspection and maintenance actions in the ALS of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness following the use of these ratings. In order to
harmonize with CS-E 25, we are requiring the applicant to create a
mandatory in-service engine evaluation program to ensure continued
adequacy of the airworthiness instructions for the engines.
    The 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings allow for limited use in
service followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance. These ratings
assume some engine parts or components may not be suitable for further
use and will need to be replaced after the application of these
ratings. The mandatory inspections and maintenance actions following
the use of 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings must (1) identify and
correct any component distress that could significantly reduce
subsequent engine reliability or prevent the engine from achieving 30-
second OEI and 2-minute OEI power ratings; and (2) maintain the engine
in condition for safe OEI flight. The applicant must validate the
adequacy of the required inspections and maintenance actions.
    The TCCA commented that the requirements for validation of
inspection and maintenance actions should not be included in paragraph
(b)(1) of A33.4 but under Sec.  33.90.
    The FAA partially agrees. We find the requirement for validation of
inspection and maintenance actions is more appropriate in the ALS.
Section 33.90 establishes when the initial maintenance inspection is
required. We revised proposed paragraphs in A33.4(b) to separate the
ALS content requirements from the validation requirements. We revised
A33.4(b) into these separate requirements: Paragraph (b)(1) specifies
the content of the ALS and paragraph (b)(2) specifies the validation
requirements. We redesignated proposed (b)(2) as (b)(3) and revised
(b)(3) to reference (b)(1) for the requirements related to the
instructions for mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance
actions.
    The TCCA also commented that it is inappropriate to place an in-
service engine evaluation program in the airworthiness requirements of
A33.4 as this would become an ``open issue'' at engine type
certification. The TCCA recommends instead that this program be
described in an advisory circular as an acceptable means of compliance.
    We intend that the applicant should submit an in-service engine
evaluation program at engine certification, and that this program
should have provisions for the applicant to continue its evaluation
throughout the service life of the engine. We note that this
requirement harmonizes with CS-E 25 and is unlikely to become a
certification issue.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This final rule codifies existing certification practices while
maintaining the existing level of safety. The existing certification
practices reflect the ratings' use and lessons learned from completed
engine certifications and service experience.
    The final rule also harmonizes the FAA standards with those of
EASA. Presently, engine manufacturers must satisfy both United States
and European requirements to certify and market part 33 engines in both
the United States and in Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of development often with no increase in
safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the
cost of development, and making the certification process more
efficient, the FAA, EASA, and manufacturers have worked to create to
the maximum possible extent a single set of certification requirements
accepted in both the United States and Europe.
    This final rule harmonizes FAA type certification standards for OEI
ratings with the requirements already in existence in Europe, thus
simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export. The FAA has
not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to
harmonization of this rule, beyond noting that they will contribute to
certification and validation savings. There is also potential for
increased safety by having clearer and more explicit regulations. In
addition, safety after an engine failure or shutdown under the
requirements contained in this final rule will be at least equivalent
to safety under the previous requirements and certification practices.
We received no comments regarding our initial minimal cost
determination in the NPRM, and arrive at the same minimal cost
determination for this final rule.

    Currently, manufacturers that hold OEI ratings are: General
Electric Aircraft Engines, Rolls-Royce Corporation (Indiana), Light
Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC), and Honeywell International,
Inc. These manufacturers also seek validation in Europe. For example,
the General Electric CT7-8 series turbine engine was validated in
Europe in November 2004. Because all existing manufacturers with OEI
ratings also seek validation in Europe, where the requirements of this
final rule are already in place, it codifies common industry business
practice.
    Because this final rule codifies existing certification practices
while maintaining the existing level of safety, we have determined that
this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The benefits of
this final rule justify the costs and the existing level of safety will
be preserved.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, we found that
there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. There were no comments on our initial
regulatory flexibility determination.
    Using the Small Business Administration Size Standards, we find
that there are no small business manufacturers who hold OEI ratings. In
addition, this rule reduces certification costs. Because this rule
reduces costs and no small businesses are affected, our final
regulatory flexibility determination is that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    This final rule considers and incorporates an international
standard as the basis of an FAA regulation. Thus this final rule
complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and does not create
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that it does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or
you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA
official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Engines,
Helicopters, Ratings, Rotorcraft, Safety.

14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Engines, Ratings,
Rotorcraft, Safety.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends parts 1 and 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.1 by revising the definitions for ``Rated 30-second
OEI power,'' ``Rated 2-minute OEI power,'' ``Rated continuous OEI
power,'' ``Rated 30-minute OEI power,'' and ``Rated 2\1/2\-minute OEI
power,'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Rated 30-second OEI Power, with respect to rotorcraft turbine
engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static
conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine under part 33 of this chapter,
for continuation of one flight operation after the failure or shutdown
of one engine in multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three periods of use
no longer than 30 seconds each in any one flight, and followed by
mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action.
    Rated 2-minute OEI Power, with respect to rotorcraft turbine
engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static
conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine under part 33 of this chapter,
for continuation of one flight operation after the failure or shutdown
of one engine in multiengine rotorcraft, for up to three periods of use
no longer than 2 minutes each in any one flight, and followed by
mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action.
    Rated continuous OEI power, with respect to rotorcraft turbine
engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static
conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine under part 33 of this chapter,
and limited in use to the time required to complete the flight after
the failure or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft.
* * * * *
    Rated 30-minute OEI power, with respect to rotorcraft turbine
engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static
conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine under part 33 of this chapter,
and limited in use to one period of use no longer than 30 minutes after
the failure or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft.
    Rated 2\1/2\-minute OEI power, with respect to rotorcraft turbine
engines, means the approved brake horsepower developed under static
conditions at specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine under part 33 of this chapter
for periods of use no longer than 2\1/2\ minutes each after the failure
or shutdown of one engine of a multiengine rotorcraft.
* * * * *

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
3. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
4. Amend Sec.  33.5 to add a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.5  Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) For rotorcraft engines having one or more OEI ratings,
applicants must provide data on engine performance characteristics and
variability to enable the aircraft manufacturer to establish aircraft
power assurance procedures.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  33.29 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

Sec.  33.29  Instrument connection.

* * * * *
    (c) Each rotorcraft turbine engine having a 30-second OEI rating
and a 2-minute OEI rating must have a means or a provision for a means
to:
    (1) Alert the pilot when the engine is at the 30-second OEI and the
2-minute OEI power levels, when the event begins, and when the time
interval expires;
    (2) Automatically record each usage and duration of power at the
30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI levels;
    (3) Alert maintenance personnel in a positive manner that the
engine has been operated at either or both of the 30-second and 2-
minute OEI power levels, and permit retrieval of the recorded data; and
    (4) Enable routine verification of the proper operation of the
above means.
    (d) The means, or the provision for a means, of paragraphs (c)(2)
and (c)(3) of this section must not be capable of being reset in
flight.

0
6. Revise Sec.  33.67(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.67  Fuel system.

* * * * *
    (d) Rotorcraft engines having a 30-second OEI rating must
incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic
availability and automatic control of the 30-second OEI power within
its operating limitations.

0
7. Amend Sec.  33.87 by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6)
as paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7);
0
B. By adding new paragraph (c)(2); and
0
C. By revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), (c)(3), newly redesignated
paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7), (f) introductory text, (f)(4) and
(f)(8) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.87  Endurance test.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Maximum air bleed for engine and aircraft services must be used
during at least one-fifth of the runs, except for the test required
under paragraph (f) of this section, provided the validity of the test
is not compromised. However, for these runs, the power or thrust or the
rotor shaft rotational speed may be less than 100 percent of the value
associated with the particular operation being tested if the FAA finds
that the validity of the endurance test is not compromised.

    (6) Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded in
accordance with paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, except
as permitted by paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section for the test
required under paragraph (f) of this section.
    (i) The load imposed by each accessory used only for aircraft
service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the
engine drive and attachment point during rated maximum continuous power
or thrust and higher output.
    (ii) The endurance test of any accessory drive and mounting
attachment under load may be accomplished on a separate rig if the
validity of the test is confirmed by an approved analysis.
    (iii) The applicant is not required to load the accessory drives
and mounting attachments when running the tests under paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(8) of this section if the applicant can substantiate that
there is no significant effect on the durability of any accessory drive
or engine component. However, the applicant must add the equivalent
engine output power extraction from the power turbine rotor assembly to
the engine shaft output.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Rated maximum continuous and takeoff power. Thirty minutes at--
    (i) Rated maximum continuous power during fifteen of the twenty-
five 6-hour endurance test cycles; and
    (ii) Rated takeoff power during ten of the twenty-five 6-hour
endurance test cycles.
    (3) Rated maximum continuous power. One hour at rated maximum
continuous power.
    (4) Rated 30-minute OEI power. Thirty minutes at rated 30-minute
OEI power.
    (5) Incremental cruise power. Two hours and 30 minutes at the
successive power lever positions corresponding with not less than 15
approximately equal speed and time increments between maximum
continuous engine rotational speed and ground or minimum idle
rotational speed. For engines operating at constant speed, power may be
varied in place of speed. If there are significant peak vibrations
anywhere between ground idle and maximum continuous conditions, the
number of increments chosen must be changed to increase the amount of
running conducted while subject to peak vibrations up to not more than
50 percent of the total time spent in incremental running.
    (6) Acceleration and deceleration runs. Thirty minutes of
accelerations and decelerations, consisting of six cycles from idling
power to rated takeoff power and maintained at the takeoff power lever
position for 30 seconds and at the idling power lever position for
approximately 4\1/2\ minutes. In complying with this paragraph, the
power control lever must be moved from one extreme position to the
other in not more than one second. If, however, different regimes of
control operations are incorporated that necessitate scheduling of the
power control lever motion from one extreme position to the other, then
a longer period of time is acceptable, but not more than two seconds.
    (7) Starts. One hundred starts, of which 25 starts must be preceded
by at least a two-hour engine shutdown. There must be at least 10 false
engine starts, pausing for the applicant's specified minimum fuel
drainage time, before attempting a normal start. There must be at least
10 normal restarts not more than 15 minutes after engine shutdown. The
remaining starts may be made after completing the 150 hours of
endurance testing.
* * * * *
    (f) Rotorcraft Engines for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI
ratings are desired. For each rotorcraft engine for which 30-second OEI
and 2-minute OEI power ratings are desired, and following completion of
the tests under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, the
applicant may disassemble the tested engine to the extent necessary to
show compliance with the requirements of Sec.  33.93(a). The tested
engine must then be reassembled using the same parts used during the
test runs of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, except
those parts described as consumables in the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness. Additionally, the tests required in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(8) of this section must be run continuously. If a stop
occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated
unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be
reduced if it were continued. The applicant must conduct the following
test sequence four times, for a total time of not less than 120
minutes:
* * * * *
    (4) 30-minute OEI power, continuous OEI power, or maximum
continuous power. Five minutes at whichever is the greatest of rated
30-minute OEI power, rated continuous OEI power, or rated maximum
continuous power, except that, during the first test sequence, this
period shall be 65 minutes. However, where the greatest rated power is
30-minute OEI power, that sixty-five minute period shall consist of 30
minutes at 30-minute OEI power followed by 35 minutes at whichever is
the greater of continuous OEI power or maximum continuous power.
* * * * *
    (8) Idle. One minute at flight idle.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  33.88 by removing paragraph (b), redesignating (c) and
(d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively; and revising the text of
the newly designated paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.88  Engine overtemperature test.

* * * * *
    (b) In addition to the test requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, each engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings
are desired, that incorporates a means for automatic temperature
control within its operating limitations in accordance with Sec.
33.67(d), must run for a period of 4 minutes at the maximum power-on
rpm with the gas temperature at least 35 [deg]F (19 [deg]C) higher than
the maximum operating limit at 30-second OEI rating. Following this
run, the turbine assembly may exhibit distress beyond the limits for an
overtemperature condition provided the engine is shown by analysis or
test, as found necessary by the FAA, to maintain the integrity of the
turbine assembly.
* * * * *

0
9. Revise Sec.  33.93(b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.93  Teardown inspection.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Each engine may exhibit deterioration in excess of that
permitted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, including some engine
parts or components that may be unsuitable for further use. The
applicant must show by inspection, analysis, test, or by any
combination thereof as found necessary by the FAA, that structural
integrity of the engine is maintained; or
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Appendix A to part 33 by revising section A33.4 to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Part 33--Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

* * * * *

A33.4 AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS SECTION

    The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness must contain a
section titled Airworthiness Limitations that is segregated and
clearly distinguishable from the rest of the manual.

    (a) For all engines:
    (1) The Airworthiness Limitations section must set forth each
mandatory replacement time, inspection interval, and related
procedure required for type certification. If the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness consist of multiple documents, the section
required under this paragraph must be included in the principal
manual.
    (2) This section must contain a legible statement in a prominent
location that reads: ``The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA
approved and specifies maintenance required under Sec. Sec.  43.16
and 91.403 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations unless an
alternative program has been FAA approved.''
    (b) For rotorcraft engines having 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI
ratings:
    (1) The Airworthiness Limitations section must also prescribe
the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions
associated with any use of either 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI
ratings.
    (2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections
and maintenance actions required under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section A33.4.
    (3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation
program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for
mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section A33.4 and of the data for
Sec.  33.5(b)(4) pertaining to power availability. The program must
include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test
experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service
usage of the 30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-18936 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24327]
[DOCID:fr02my08-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Monday, May 5, 2008 at
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    1. The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by Impax
Laboratories, Inc. from an initial decision of an administrative law
judge. Impax, a Delaware corporation, develops, manufactures, and
distributes pharmaceutical products. Impax's common stock is registered
with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
    The law judge found that Impax had violated Exchange Act Section
13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder by failing to
file its required quarterly and annual reports for any period after
September 30, 2004. The law judge revoked the registration of Impax's
common stock.
    Impax does not appeal the law judge's findings of violation.
However, Impax does appeal the sanction imposed by the law judge.
    Issues likely to be considered include whether the protection of
investors requires revoking the Section 12(g) registration of Impax's
common stock.
    2. The Commission will also hear oral argument on an appeal by
Robert Radano from an initial decision of an administrative law judge
barring him from associating with any investment adviser. The law judge
based his decision to impose a bar on Radano's having been enjoined
from future violations of (A) Sections 206(1) and (2)--the antifraud
provisions--of the Investment Advisers Act, and (B) Investment Advisers
Act Section 203(f), which prohibits investment advisers from
associating with a barred individual. Issues likely to be considered
include whether it is in the public interest to bar Radano from
association with any investment adviser.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 28, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9644 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47997-48001]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89457; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 To Proposed Rule Change To Establish
a Wireless Fee Schedule Setting Forth Available Wireless Bandwidth
Connections and Associated Fees

August 3, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On January 30, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-NYSENAT-2020-03) to establish
a schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges (``Wireless Fee
Schedule'') listing available wireless bandwidth connections between
the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and other data centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission published the proposed rule change for public
comment in the Federal Register on February 18, 2020.\3\ The Commission
received several comments on the proposed rule change, and a response
from the Exchange.\4\ On April 1, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On May 18, 2020, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission received additional comments in response
to the Order Instituting Proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88171 (February 11,
2020), 85 FR 8930 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-03)
(``Wireless I Notice''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 88168 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8938 (February 18, 2020) (SR-
NYSE-2020-05); 88169 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8946 (February 18,
2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05); 88170 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8956
(February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-08); and 88172 (February 11,
2020), 85 FR 8923 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSECHX-2020-02).
    \4\ Comments received on the Wireless I Notice and the
Exchange's response are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-03/srnysenat202003.htm.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88539 (April 1,
2020), 85 FR 19553 (April 7, 2020). The Commission designated May
18, 2020, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule changes.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88901 (May 18,
2020), 85 FR 31273 (May 22, 2020) in which the Commission instituted
proceedings (``Order Instituting Proceedings'' or ``OIP'').
    \8\ Comments received on the Wireless I Notice following the OIP
also are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-03/srnysenat202003.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2020, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change in response to certain comments on the proposed
rule change. Partial Amendment No. 1 is described in Item II below,
which has been substantially prepared by the Exchange.\9\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Partial
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission has reformatted the Exchange's presentation
of the footnotes.
    \10\ Partial Amendment No. 1 is also available on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-03/srnysenat202003.htm. The Commission also refers interested
persons to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88241 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 10738 (February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-08) (wherein
the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend the proposed
Wireless Fee Schedule to add ``Wireless Market Data Connections''
and associated fees (``Wireless II'') and concurrently proposes to
partially amend Wireless II). Partial Amendment No. 1 to Wireless II
is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysenat-2020-08/srnysenat202008.htm.

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

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Amendment

    NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the ``Exchange'') hereby
submits this Partial Amendment No. 1 to the above-referenced filing
(``Filing''), in connection with the proposed rule change to establish
a schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges (the ``Wireless
Fee Schedule'') with wireless connections between the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center and other data centers. With this Partial Amendment
No. 1, the Exchange proposes a new rule to place restrictions on the
use of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that
is used for such wireless connections.
    The Exchange proposes the following amendments to the Filing:
    1. The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph in Item 1(a)
on page 3 of the Filing:
    The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph of Item 1(a) on
page 3 of the Filing to add ``(a)'' before ``establish'' and add new
text at the end of the paragraph to describe the proposed rule change,
as follows (new text italicized):

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the ``Exchange'') proposes
to (a) establish a schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and
Charges (the ``Wireless Fee Schedule'') with wireless connections
between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and other data centers,
and (b) add a new rule to place restrictions on the use of a pole on
the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is used for
such wireless connections.

    2. The Exchange proposes to amend the carryover paragraph on pages
3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page 24 of the Exhibit
1):
    The Exchange proposes to add a sentence at the end of the carryover
paragraph on pages 3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page
24 of the Exhibit 1) to describe the proposed rule change, as follows
(new text italicized):

    The Exchange proposes to establish the Wireless Fee Schedule
with wireless connections between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
and three data centers that are owned and operated by third parties
unaffiliated with the Exchange: (1) Carteret, New Jersey, (2)
Secaucus, New Jersey, and (3) Markham, Canada (collectively, the
``Third Party Data Centers''). Market participants that purchase
such a wireless connection (a ``Wireless Connection'') are charged
an initial and monthly fee. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
include a General Note to the Wireless Fee Schedule. The Exchange
proposes to add a new rule to place restrictions on the use of a
pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is
used for the Wireless Connections.

    3. The Exchange proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New
Rule'' and accompanying footnotes after the first full paragraph on
page 14 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 39 of the Exhibit
1):
    The Exchange proposes a new rule to place restrictions on the use
of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is
used for wireless connectivity services. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New Rule'' with
accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a
conforming change) after the first full paragraph on page 14 of the
Filing (first full paragraph on page 39 of the Exhibit 1), after the
end of the section titled ``Proposed General Note,'' as follows (all
text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    Since 2016, IDS has had the use of a pole on the grounds of the
Mahwah data center.25/26 The data center pole is part of
the network utilized for the Wireless Connections to the Carteret
and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers.26/27 At the data
center pole, the wireless connection to the Third Party Data Centers
converts to a fiber connection, and the fiber connection travels
from the data center pole into the Mahwah data
center.27/28 The equipment on the data center pole
belongs to IDS and Anova Technologies, LLC (``Anova''), the non-ICE
entity that owns the wireless network used for the Wireless
Connections to Secaucus and Carteret.28/29
    Other third parties that offer wireless services utilize
commercial poles located outside the grounds of the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center for their wireless networks. A third party's
wireless connections to the Third Party Data Center convert to fiber
connections at the commercial pole, and the fiber connects the
commercial pole to the Mahwah data center.
    Several such third parties have objected to the use of the data
center pole for the Wireless Connections. They argue that IDS has an
advantage over its competitors because third parties are not allowed
access to the data center pole,29/30 and the data center
pole is closer to the Mahwah data center than any commercial
pole.30/31 At least one third party has raised the
additional concern that the Wireless Connections may benefit from
``less obvious and more discreet types of latency advantages'' due
to infrastructure inside the Mahwah data center, noting that ``some
connections may have a longer fiber route than others within a data
center or may have to go through various equipment or meet me rooms
that an affiliate or preferred provider of an exchange do not.''
31/32
    The Exchange is proposing a new Rule 3.13 (Data Center Pole
Latency Restrictions--Connectivity to Co-Location Space) that would
require that the length of the connection from the data center pole
to the network row in the space used for co-location in the Mahwah
data center (i.e., the point where the Wireless Connections lead) be
no less than the length of the connection from the closest
commercial pole to the same point. By requiring that the compared
connections both extend to the network row in the space used for co-
location, the proposed rule would take distances within the Mahwah
data center into account.
    The proposed rule would include the following definitions:
     ``Commercial Pole'' would mean a pole (a) on which one
or more third parties locate wireless equipment used to offer
wireless connectivity to other third parties, and (b) from which a
fiber connection extends from third party equipment on the pole to
the Data Center.
     ``Data Center'' would mean the Mahwah, New Jersey data
center where the Exchange's matching engine is located, or its
successor.
     ``Data Center Pole'' would mean a pole that (a) holds
wireless equipment, (b) is located within the grounds of the Data
Center, and (c) cannot be used by third parties other than third
parties with which the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate has an agreement
to provide services in the name of the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate.
     ``ICE Affiliate'' would mean Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc. (``ICE'') and any entity that directly or indirectly, through
one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with ICE, where ``control'' means that one entity
possesses, directly or indirectly, voting control of the other
entity either through ownership of capital stock or other equity
securities or through majority representation on the board of
directors or other management body of such entity.

    The proposed rule would require that:

The length of the connection between (a) the base of the Data Center
Pole and (b) the network row in the space used for co-location in
the Data Center shall be no less than the length of the connection
between (x) the base of the closest Commercial Pole and (y) the
network row in the space used for co-location in the Data Center.

    In a conforming change, the Exchange proposes to add a new Rule
3.12, marked ``Reserved.'' The addition would allow the numbering of
the proposed Rule 3.13 to be consistent with changes proposed by the
Affiliate SROs to their rules.32/33

25/26 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76748
(December 23, 3015), 80 FR 81609 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-
52) (order approving proposed rule change to the co-location
services offered by the NYSE (the offering of a wireless connection
to allow users to receive market data feeds from third party
markets) and to reflect changes to the NYSE's price list related to
these services).
26/27 The Wireless Connections with Markham, Canada do
not use equipment

on the data center pole.
27/28 The wireless network similarly converts to a fiber
connection for its connection into the Third Party Data Centers.
28/29 Equipment for services Anova offers under its own
name is not allowed on the data center pole.
29/30 IDS does not sell rights to third parties to
operate wireless equipment on the data center pole due to space
limitations, security concerns, and the interference that would
arise between equipment placed too closely together.
30/31 See letter from Gregory Babyak, Global Head of
Regulatory Affairs, Bloomberg L.P., to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
dated June 12, 2020; letter from Stephen John Berger, Managing
Director, Global Head of Government and Regulatory Policy, Citadel
Securities, to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 12, 2020; letter from Jim Considine, Chief Financial Officer,
McKay Brothers LLC (``McKay Brothers''), to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 12, 2020 (``McKay Letter''); and
letter from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Virtu
Financial, Inc. to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated March 10, 2020.
31/32 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 9.
32/33 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88168
(February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8938, (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-
05); 88169 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8946 February 18, 2020) (SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-05); 88170 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8956 (February
18, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-08); and 88172 (February 11, 2020), 85
FR 8923 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSECHX-2020-02); (notice of filing
of proposed rule change to establish a Schedule of Wireless
Connectivity Fees and Charges with wireless connections).

    4. The Exchange proposes to add new text after the second full
paragraph on page 15 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 41 of
the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Filing to include additional
analysis of the competitive environment for wireless connections.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph and accompanying
footnote (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming
change) after the second full paragraph on page 15 of the Filing (first
full paragraph on page 41 of the Exhibit 1), as follows (all text new):

    The Exchange believes that its competitors' wireless connections
provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the Wireless
Connections, and at the same or similar cost. Indeed, the McKay
Letter acknowledges that McKay Brothers has the fastest wireless
network.34/35

34/35 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 4.

    5. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the first full paragraph on page 18 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 45 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is reasonable. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of the Filing to
add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes
would be renumbered in a conforming change) after the first full
paragraph on page 18 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 45 of
the Exhibit 1), at the end of the section titled ``The Proposed Change
is Reasonable,'' as follows (all text is new):

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.13 would be
reasonable as, pursuant to the rule, the networks for the Wireless
Connections, and future wireless connections that use a Data Center
Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as competitors do today
without a latency subsidy or other advantage provided by the
Exchanges. . . .'' 39/40 Accordingly, the proposed new
rule would promote just and equitable principles of trade and, in
general, protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that
the subscribers to services using the IDS wireless network do not
benefit from any physical proximity ``on the segment [of the
network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that no competitor
can replicate.'' 40/41 By ending both of the compared
connections at the network row in the space used for co-location,
the proposed rule would take distances within the Mahwah data center
into account.
    The proposed new rule would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. The Exchange would be
required to ensure that the length of the connection between (a) the
base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the network row in the space
used for co-location in the Data Center, would be no less than the
length of the connection between (x) the base of the closest
Commercial Pole and (y) the network row in the space used for co-
location in the Data Center.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of
``Commercial Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and
equitable principles of trade because it would encompass any pole on
which a third party locates its wireless equipment in order to offer
wireless connectivity to customers. The Exchange believes that such
third parties are the direct competitors for the Wireless
Connections, as they also offer wireless connections to customers.
If a third party used a pole for a proprietary wireless network and
that pole does not have one or more third parties' wireless
equipment used to offer wireless connectivity to other third
parties, that pole would not fall within the scope of the definition
of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would capture any data center to
which the Exchange locates its matching engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would encompass not just the current
pole, but also any additional or successor pole on the grounds of
the Data Center, so long as such pole could not be used by third
parties other than third parties with which the Exchange or an ICE
Affiliate had an agreement to provide services in the name of the
Exchange or an ICE Affiliate, such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
is reasonable and would promote just and equitable principles of
trade because the same definition is used in Rule 3.1 (Additional
Requirements for Listed Securities Issued by Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. or its Affiliates), and so using it would add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

39/40 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 7.
40/41 Id., at note 33.

    6. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 48 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis
section of the Filing to add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes
(subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming change) after
the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing (first full paragraph
on page 48 of the Exhibit 1), immediately prior to the last paragraph
of the section titled ``The Proposed Change is Not Unfairly
Discriminatory,'' as follows (all text is new):

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.13 would not
be unfairly discriminatory, as pursuant to the rule, the networks
for the Wireless Connections, and future wireless connections that
use the Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as
competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 41/42 Accordingly, the
proposed new rule would ensure that the IDS wireless network does
not benefit from physical proximity ``on the segment [of the
network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that no competitor
can replicate.'' 42/43 By ending both of the compared
connections at the network row in the space used for co-location
inside the Data Center, the proposed rule would take distances
within the Mahwah data center into account.
    The proposed new rule would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. The Exchange would be
required to ensure that the length of the connection between (a) the
base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the network row in the space
used for co-location in the Data Center, would be no less than the
length of the connection between (x) the base of the closest
Commercial Pole and (y) the network row in

the space used for co-location in the Data Center.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of
``Commercial Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it
would encompass any pole on which a third party locates its wireless
equipment in order to offer wireless connectivity to customers. The
Exchange believes that such third parties are the direct competitors
for the Wireless Connections, as they also offer wireless
connections to customers. If a third party used a pole for a
proprietary wireless network and that pole does not have one or more
third parties' wireless equipment used to offer wireless
connectivity to other third parties, that pole would not fall within
the scope of the definition of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would
capture any data center to which the Exchange locates its matching
engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would
encompass not just the current pole, but also any additional or
successor pole on the grounds of the Data Center, so long as such
pole could not be used by third parties other than third parties
with which the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate had an agreement to
provide services in the name of the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate,
such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
would not be unfairly discriminatory because the same definition is
used in Rule 3.1, and so using it would add transparency, clarity
and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

41/42 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 7.
42/43 Id., at note 33.

    7. The Exchange proposes to amend the section of the Filing titled
``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition''
in the following two ways:
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'').\11\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the
section of the Filing titled ``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement
on Burden on Competition'' in the following two ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, to set the new text apart from the previous discussion
regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange proposes to add the
heading ``Wireless Market Data Connectivity'' immediately before the
first full paragraph under the heading on page 20 of the Filing (page
48 of the Exhibit 1). The new heading would apply to the current text
of the Filing.
    Second, after the third full paragraph on page 21 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 51 of the Exhibit 1), the Exchange
proposes to add the heading ``Proposed New Rule'' and new paragraphs
and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in
a conforming change), as follows (all text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new rule would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the
Act.46/47
    With the exception of Anova, third parties do not have access to
the data center pole. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange would
always be obligated to ensure that the length of the connection
between (a) the base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the network row
in the space used for co-location in the Data Center, would be no
less than the length of the connection between (x) the base of the
closest Commercial Pole and (y) the network row in the space used
for co-location in the Data Center.
    IDS, not the Exchange, provides the Wireless Connections to
market participants, and so it would be IDS that would have to slow
its connection down as required by the rule. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the only burden on competition of the
proposed change would be on IDS.
    Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the proposed change would ensure that the IDS
wireless network did not benefit from physical proximity ``on the
segment [of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that
no competitor can replicate.'' 47/48 The networks for the
Wireless Connections, and future wireless connections that use the
Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as
competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 48/49
    The proposed rule would not otherwise put a burden on
competition. As noted above, access to the data center pole is not
required for third parties to establish wireless networks that can
compete with the Wireless Connections to the Carteret and Secaucus
Third Party Data Centers, as evidenced by the existing wireless
connections offered by non-ICE entities.49/50 Indeed, the
Exchange believes that its competitors' wireless connections provide
connectivity at the same or similar speed as the Wireless
Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The McKay Letter
acknowledges that McKay Brothers has the fastest wireless
network.50/51
    The Exchange notes that proximity to a data center is not the
only determinant of a wireless network's latency. Rather, the
latency of a wireless network depends on several factors. Variables
include the wireless equipment utilized; the route of, and number of
towers or buildings in, the network; and the fiber equipment used at
either end of the connection. Moreover, latency is not the only
consideration that a customer may have in selecting a wireless
network to connect to for market data. Other considerations may
include the amount of network uptime; the equipment that the network
uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable contractual
provisions.
    The proposed change does not affect competition among national
securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange, but rather
between IDS and its commercial competitors.

46/47 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
47/48 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at note 33.
48/49 Id., at 7.
49/50 A market participant in any of the Third Party Data
Centers or the Mahwah data center also may create a proprietary
wireless market data connection, connect through another market
participant, or utilize fiber connections offered by the Exchange,
ICE Affiliates, and other service providers and third party
telecommunications providers.
50/51 Id., at 4.

    8. The Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of
the Proposed Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing:
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Exhibit 5B. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of Proposed
Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing, as follows (new text
italicized):

Exhibit 5--Text of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Text of the Proposed Schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and
Charges
B. Text of the Proposed Rule

    9. The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full
paragraph of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1:
    The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full paragraph
of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1, as follows (new text
italicized):

    The Exchange proposes to establish a schedule of Wireless
Connectivity Fees and Charges (the ``Wireless Fee Schedule'') with
wireless connections between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and
other data centers and add a new rule to place restrictions on the
use of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center
that is used for such wireless connections. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

    10. The Exchange proposes to amend ``Exhibit 5'' to ``Exhibit 5A''
on page 54 of the Exhibit 5:
    To reflect the addition of a new Exhibit 5B, the Exchange proposes
to add ``A'' to ``EXHIBIT 5'' on page 54 of the Exhibit 5, to make it
to ``EXHIBIT 5A''.
* * * * *
    All other representations in the Filing remain as stated therein
and no other changes are being made.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1 and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 180 days after the date of publication of the initial Notice
of Filing in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to an
additional 60 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will issue an order approving or disapproving such
proposed rule change, as amended.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended by Partial Amendment No. 1, 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-NYSENAT-2020-03 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-NYSENAT-2020-03. 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 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. 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-NYSENAT-2020-03, and should be submitted
on or before August 28, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17247 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3771-3772]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-2]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA will seek approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
March 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2023-0002. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number (2130-0537) in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8-1320.12. Specifically, FRA
invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding:
(1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA
to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities
will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the
burden of the information collection activities, including the validity
of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3)
ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the
burden of information collection activities on the public, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal statutes and regulations mandate. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1)
reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection
requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 207 requires railroads to notify States
of all designated police officers who perform duties in their
respective jurisdictions who were commissioned as police officers by
another State or States. This is necessary to verify proper police
authority.
    In this 60-day notice, FRA made multiple adjustments which
increased the previously approved burden hours from 11 hours to 18
hours. For instance:

     Under Sec. Sec.  207.4(a), 207.4(b), and 207.6, the
combined burden increased from 11 hours to 15.84 hours because of an
increase in number of responses--from 100 to 150 updated notices and
records per year. FRA's estimate is based on the anticipated increase
in law enforcement in the railroad industry.
     FRA also added a new burden under Sec.  207.4(b) to
capture railroads' responses to FRA's inquiries regarding program
review of the notification process.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 784 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
          CFR section                 Respondent universe         Total annual responses        Average time per     Total annual burden    dollar cost
                                                                                response                hours           equivalent
                                                               (A).........................  (B)..................  (C) = A * B.........       (D) = C *
                                                                                wage rates \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
207.4(a)--RR Notice to State     784 railroads...............  50 written notices..........  15 minutes...........  12.50 hours.........         $973.88
 Officials--Written notice of
 RR police officer's commission
 to each State in which the RR
 police officer shall protect
 the railroad's property,
 personnel, passengers, and
 cargo.
207.4(b)--RR copy of written     784 railroads...............  50 records..................  2 minutes............  1.67 hours..........          130.11
 notices to State officials.
--RR copy of written notices to  784 railroads...............  50 verifications............  2 minutes............  1.67 hours..........          130.11
 State officials--RR's email
 verification in response to
 FRA's inquiry for program
 review.
207.6--Transfers--Application    784 railroads...............  50 records..................  2 minutes............  1.67 hours..........          130.11
 by RR police officers for new
 State certification/commission
 when transferring primary
 employment or residence from
 one State to another.
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \2\..................  784 railroads...............  200 responses...............  N/A..................  18 hours............           1,364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2021 Surface Transportation Bureau's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee
  group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost amounts to $77.91 per hour.
\2\ Totals may not add due to rounding.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 200.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 18 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $1,364.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-01046 Filed 1-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27759-27760]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11402-073]

City of Crystal Falls, MI; Notice of Application for Temporary
Variance of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Temporary variance of license.
    b. Project No.: 11402-073.
    c. Date Filed: May 30, 2012.
    d. Applicant: City of Crystal Falls, MI.
    e. Name of Project: Crystal Falls Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Paint River in the City
of Crystal Falls, Michigan.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Dave Graff, City of Crystal Falls, 401
Superior Avenue, Crystal Falls, MI 49920,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 4, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments. Please include the
project number (P-11402-073) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Application: The City of Crystal Falls requests a
variance for the following: (1) Impoundment drawdown will begin on July
27, 2012, at a rate of 1.0 foot per day for the first four days from
its summer elevation of 1333.98 feet. Once the impoundment is drawn
down 4.0 feet, then the drawdown rate will switch to 1.5 feet per day
until a 20 foot drawdown is reached. (2) Once drawdown is complete the
city will revert back to run-of-river where the outflow will match the
inflow. (3) The impoundment will be filled as the inflow allows, while
maintaining 150 cubic feet per second outflow. This shall occur as soon
as possible but no later than November 1, 2012. (4) The scheduled water
quality study will be conducted in July and August of 2013 rather than
in 2012. (5) The barrier net will be lifted when the generators are no
longer generating while the impoundment is in the drawdown state.
During the drawdown the City will conduct surveys for stranded mussels
and fish. Additionally, recreational access will be limited to canoes,
kayaks, and small boats during the drawdown.
    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-2698) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be

notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: May 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11351 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P