[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43674-43676]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0283; Special Conditions No. 25-326A-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A380 Airplanes; Stairways
Between Decks

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final amended special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for the Airbus
Model A380 airplane. By issuance of this amendment to the special
condition, the FAA is correcting an error that appeared in the Federal
Register on August 28, 2006, for Special Conditions No. 25-326-SC,
Docket No. NM314. This airplane will have novel or unusual design
features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design
feature is associated with the complex systems and the configuration of
the airplane, including its full-length double deck. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective September 23, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Jacquet, Airframe and Cabin Safety
Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Airbus requested an amendment to Special Condition No. 25-326-SC in
letter L2578ME1831060 revision 1, dated November 21, 2018. This letter
states:

    The Special Conditions applicable to the stairways on full-
length double-deck airplane were extensively discussed in the Very
Large Transport Aircraft conference, on October 1998 in
Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands and in the Cabin Safety Meeting
between FAA, EASA, and Airbus, held in Hamburg, Feb. 25, 2003. In
the latter meeting, the Special Conditions have been aligned.
    However, Airbus noticed that the Special Conditions for the
availability of stairs published in the Federal Register (Special
Condition No. 25-326-SC from September 11, 2006) require more when
compared to Special Conditions of IP-C1 Stage 4 Airbus received June
13, 2003.
    Special Condition No. 25-326-SC reads:
    a. At least one stairway between decks must meet the following
requirements: The stairway accommodates the carriage of an
incapacitated person from one deck to the other. The crew member
procedures for such carriage must be established.
    b. There must be at least two stairways between decks that meet
the following requirements: The stairways must be designed such that
evacuees can achieve an adequate rate for going down or going up
under probable emergency conditions, including a condition in which
a person falls or is incapacitated while on a stairway. One of the
stairways must be the stairway specified in paragraph a. above.
    For whatever reasons, the consideration of the condition in
which a person falls or is incapacitated while on the stairs re-
appears. Resulting from the A380 Certification Meeting held in
Hamburg this was agreed to be not required by the IP.
    It was the FAA position that this type of demonstration is not
required for the main passenger aisle in the airplane and therefore
should not be required for the stairways.
    The Stage 4 of the IP-C1, dated February 25, 2003 received for
A380 Type Certificate thus reads as follows:
    A. At least two stairways between decks must meet the following
requirements:
    (1) At least one of the stairways must accommodate the carriage
of an incapacitated person from one deck to the other. The crew
member procedures for such a carriage must be established.
    (2) The stairways must be designed such that evacuees can be
shown to achieve an adequate rate, for going down or going up, under
probable emergency conditions.
    All further Special Conditions published in the Federal Register
(Sec. Sec.  c though e) are identical to the Special Conditions of
the IP (Sec. Sec.  B though D), however using a different wording.
    Since the IP-C1, Stage 4 is the bilateral agreement between FAA
and Airbus, and the Federal Register is available to the public,
Airbus would appreciate the correction of the Special Condition
published in the Federal Register under 25-326-SC. This would avoid
any misunderstanding in the A380 future.

    During initial discussions with Airbus regarding the special
conditions, the FAA had included a requirement that the stairways be
designed such that evacuees can achieve an adequate rate going down or
up under probable emergency conditions, including a condition in which
a person falls or is incapacitated while on the stairway. Airbus agreed
with the requirement except for the portion pertaining to a person
falling or being incapacitated. The FAA documented agreement with
Airbus's position. Unfortunately the special conditions were issued
with the FAA's initial proposal rather than the final agreement, and
stated that the stairs be designed such that evacuees can achieve an
adequate rate going up or down the stairs under probable emergency
conditions including a condition in which a person falls or is
incapacitated while on the stairway.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the
Model A380 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25,
as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-98. If the Administrator finds
that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate
or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A380 airplane
because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model A380 airplane must comply with the fuel
vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in
accordance with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of the type certification
basis in accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A380 airplane will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features: This airplane has a full-length double
deck. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards
regarding stairways between decks.

Discussion

    The Model A380 airplane incorporates seating on two full-length
passenger decks, each of which has the capacity of a typical wide body
airplane. Two staircases, one located in the front of the cabin and one
located in the rear, allow for the movement of persons between decks.
With large seating capacities on the main deck and the upper deck of
the Model A380 airplane, the staircases need to be able to support
movement between decks in an inflight emergency. In addition, although

compliance with the evacuation demonstration requirements of Sec.
25.803 does not depend on the use of stairs, there must be a way for
passengers on one deck to move to the other deck during an emergency
evacuation. This need must be addressed in the certification of the
airplane.
    The regulations governing the certification of the Model A380
airplane do not adequately address a passenger airplane with two
separate full-length decks for passengers. The Boeing Model 747 and the
Lockheed Model L-1011 airplanes were certificated with limited seating
capacity on two separate decks, and special conditions were issued to
certificate those arrangements. When the seating capacity of the upper
deck of the Boeing Model 747 airplane exceeded 24 passengers, the FAA
issued Special Conditions 25-61-NW-1 for a maximum seating capacity of
32 passengers on the upper deck for take-off and landing. A second set
of Special Conditions, 25-71-NW-3, was issued to cover airplanes with a
maximum seating capacity of 45 passengers on the upper deck for take-
off and landing. That second set of Special Conditions was later
modified to address airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 110
passengers on the upper deck. These previously issued special
conditions provided a starting point for the development of special
conditions for the Model A380 airplane.
    In the case of both the Model L-1011 and the Model 747 airplanes,
the special conditions were based on the requirements and associated
level of safety in place at the time of application for type
certificate. The requirements and the level of safety have improved
significantly since that time, and these special conditions reflect
those improvements.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.803 and 25.811
through 25.813, special conditions are needed to address the movement
of passengers between the two full-length decks on the Model A380
airplane. These special conditions provide additional requirements for
the stairways to ensure the safe passage of occupants between decks
during moderate turbulence, an inflight emergency, or an emergency
evacuation.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Amended Special Conditions No.
25-19-04-SC for the Airbus Model A380 airplane, which was published in
the Federal Register on May 3, 2019 (84 FR 18997). The FAA received a
response from one commenter.
    The commenter feels that stairwells should be designed for ingress
and egress above the minimum standards identified in the special
condition. However, the commenter did not propose any additional
standard that Airbus should meet nor specify why meeting the minimum
standards, of the special condition, was unsafe. As a result, no
changes have been made to the special condition.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Airbus Model A380 airplane. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well under the provisions of Sec.  21.101.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
of the Airbus Model A380 airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Airbus Model A380 airplane.

Airbus Model A380, Stairways Between Decks

    1. At least one stairway between decks must meet the following
requirements:
    The stairway accommodates the carriage of an incapacitated person
from one deck to the other. The crew member procedures for such
carriage must be established.
    2. There must be at least two stairways between decks that meet the
following requirements: The stairways must be designed such that
evacuees can achieve an adequate rate for going down or going up under
probable emergency conditions. One of the stairways must be the
stairway specified in paragraph 1. above.
    3. Each stairway between decks must meet the following
requirements:
    a. It must have an entrance, exit, and gradient characteristics
that, with the assistance of a crew member, would allow the passengers
of one deck to merge with passengers of the other deck during an
evacuation and exit the airplane. These entrance, exit, and gradient
characteristics must occur with the airplane in level attitude and in
each attitude resulting from the collapse of any one or more legs of
the landing gear. These requirements must be demonstrated by tests or
analysis.
    b. The stairway must have a handrail on at least one side in order
to allow people to steady themselves during foreseeable conditions,
including but not limited to the condition of gear collapse on the
ground and moderate turbulence in flight. The handrails must be
constructed so that there will be no obstruction on them which will
cause the user to release their grip on the handrail, or will hinder
the continuous movement of the hands along the handrail. Handrails must
be terminated in a manner which will not obstruct pedestrian travel or
create a hazard. Adequacy of the design must be demonstrated by using
persons representative of the 5% female and the 95% male.
    c. The stairway must be designed and located to minimize damage to
it during an emergency landing or ditching.
    d. The stairway must have a wall or the equivalent on each side to
minimize the risk of falling and to facilitate use of the stairway
under conditions of abnormal airplane attitude.
    e. Treads and landings must be designed and demonstrated to be free
of hazard. The landing area at each deck level must be demonstrated to
be adequate in terms of flow rate for the maximum number of people that
will be using the stair in an emergency. Treads and risers must be
designed to ensure an easy and safe use of the stairway.
    f. General emergency illumination must be provided so that, when
measured along the centerlines of each tread and landing-, the
illumination is not less than 0.05 foot-candle.
    g. In normal operation, the general illumination level must not be
less than 0.05 foot-candles. The assessment must be done under daylight
and dark of night conditions.
    h. Both stairway ends must be indicated by an exit sign visible to
passengers when in the stairway. This exit sign must meet the
requirements of Sec.  25.812(b)(1)(ii).

    i. A floor-proximity path-marking system, which meets the
requirements of Sec.  25.812(e), must be available to guide passengers
in the stairway to the stairway ends. It must not direct the occupants
of the cabin to the stair entrance.
    j. The public address system must be audible in the stairway during
all flight phases.
    k. ``No smoking'' and ``return to seat'' signs must be installed
and must be visible in the stairway both going up and down, and at the
stairway entrances.
    4. Cabin crew procedures and positions must be established to
manage the use of the stairs on the ground and in flight under both
normal and emergency situations. This may require that cabin crew
members have specific dedicated duties for the management of the stairs
during emergency and precautionary evacuations.
    5. It should not be hazardous for crew members or passengers who
are returning to their seats to use the stairways during moderate
turbulence.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 16, 2019.
Mary A. Schooley,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-18061 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48476-48479]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84200; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-076]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Fees at Rule 7014

September 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 13, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the its fees at Rule 7014 to: (i)
Eliminate the requirement that a member be a market maker to
participate in the Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'') Program; and (ii)
eliminate the additional $0.0002 per share executed credit under the
NBBO Program.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 7014 provides various Market Quality Incentive Programs
available to members. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to
amend Rule 7014 to: (i) Eliminate the requirement that a member be a
market maker to participate in the QMM Program; and (ii) eliminate the
additional $0.0002 per share executed credit under the NBBO Program.
    The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
September 4, 2018 (SR-NASDAQ-2018-071). On September 13, 2018, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing, which makes a
technical change to the proposed rule text.
First Change
    The purpose of the first proposed rule [sic] change is to eliminate
the requirement that a member be a market maker to participate in the
QMM Program. A QMM is a member that makes a significant contribution to
market quality by providing liquidity at the national best bid and
offer (``NBBO'') in a large number of stocks for a significant portion
of the day. In addition, the member must avoid imposing the burdens on
Nasdaq and its market participants that may be associated with
excessive rates of entry of orders away from the inside and/or order
cancellation. The designation reflects the QMM's commitment to provide
meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery
by extensive quoting at the NBBO in a large number of securities. In
return for its contributions, certain financial benefits are provided
to a QMM with respect to its order activity, as described under Rule
7014(e). These benefits include a lower rate charged for executions of
orders in securities priced at $1 or more per share that access
liquidity on the Nasdaq Market Center.
    Rule 7014(d) provides the qualification criteria a member must meet
to be eligible for the QMM Program. Specifically, to be designated a
QMM, a member must meet the following criteria: (1) The member is not
assessed any ``Excess Order Fee'' under Rule 7018 during the month; (2)
the member quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during regular
market hours in an average of at least 1,000 securities per day during
the month; and (3) the member is a registered Nasdaq market maker.\3\
The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the requirement that a member be
a Nasdaq market maker to be designated as a QMM. As a consequence, any
member may participate in the program if it meets the other
qualification criteria of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2015, the Exchange adopted the requirement under Rule
7014(d) that a member must be a market maker to be designated a QMM.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74725 (April 14, 2015), 80
FR 21778 (April 20, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-032). Prior to the change,
a QMM need not have been a Nasdaq market maker. Thus, the QMM
designation does not by itself impose a two-sided quotation
obligation or convey any of the benefits associated with being a
registered market maker. This is currently the case and it will
continue to be the case with the elimination of the market maker
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Change
    The purpose of the second proposed rule [sic] change is to
eliminate the additional $0.0002 per share executed credit under the
NBBO Program at Rule 7014(g). The NBBO Program provides two rebates per
share executed. The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the $0.0002 per
share executed credit, which is provided to a member for displayed
quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail
Orders) that provide liquidity priced at $1 or more. Under Rule
7014(g), to qualify for the additional $0.0002 per share executed
credit for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity priced at $1 or more,
a member must (i) execute shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represents 0.5% or more of Consolidated Volume \4\ during the month,
and (ii) has a ratio of at least 25% NBBO liquidity provided \5\ to
liquidity provided during the month. The Exchange has observed that no
members have qualified for this credit and is consequently proposing to
eliminate it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Consolidated Volume is defined as the total consolidated
volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by
all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in
equity securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less
than one round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume
and the extent of a member's trading activity the date of the annual
reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be excluded
from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading
activity. See Rule 7018(a).
    \5\ NBBO liquidity provided means liquidity provided from orders
(other than Designated Retail Orders, as defined in Nasdaq Rule
7018), that establish the NBBO, and displayed a quantity of at least
one round lot at the time of execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \9\

(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\10\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \10\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \11\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The Exchange believes that the fees and credits of the QMM Program
remain reasonable because the Exchange is not proposing to amend them.
Thus, the basis set forth when the fees were adopted remain [sic]
valid. The proposed elimination of the market maker requirement is
reasonable, an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange seeks to broaden participation in the program.
When the Exchange limited the QMM Program to market makers, it noted
that market makers had provided the vast majority of participation in
the program and were the only market participant [sic] utilizing the
program at the time.\13\ The Exchange now seeks broader participation
in the program by allowing any Nasdaq member to participate in the QMM
Program that qualifies under the remaining criteria. The Exchange
believes that circumstances have changed over the three years since it
last allowed non-Nasdaq market makers to participate in the program,
such that non-market makers may have interest in meeting the criteria
required to receive the fees and credits under the QMM Program.
Allowing broader participation in the QMM Program may increase the
market-improving participation in the QMM Program, to the extent the
number of members participating in the program increase [sic]. As a
consequence, the proposed change is reasonable, an equitable allocation
and will not discriminate in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Change
    The Exchange believes that elimination of the $0.0002 per share
executed NBBO credit is reasonable because it eliminates a credit that
the Exchange has determined to be unnecessary. In particular, the
credit has not provided adequate incentive to members to meet the
related qualifying requirements. The Exchange notes that the $0.0004
per share executed NBBO Program rebate will remain, thus members will
continue to have the opportunity to qualify for significant rebates
under the NBBO Program.
    The Exchange believes that elimination of the $0.0002 per share
executed NBBO credit is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly
discriminatory because no member currently qualifies for the credit.
Thus, eliminating the credit will not discriminate in any manner and
the proposed change will be applied equitably among all members.
Moreover, elimination of the credit from rule book will allow the
Exchange to consider new incentives.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the incentive programs
under Rule 7014 do not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange
venues. Elimination of the market maker qualification requirement from
the QMM Program may promote competition among trading venues to the
extent that allowing broader participation in the program makes the
Exchange a more attractive venue on which to participate. The proposed
elimination of the $0.0002 per share executed NBBO credit will not
place any burden on competition because no members currently qualify
for the credit. As noted above, the credit has not served its purpose
of incentivizing members to provide the market-improving participation
required by the credit's qualification criteria. Consequently, removal
of the credit should not affect competition among market participants
or market venues whatsoever.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-076 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-076. 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-NASDAQ-2018-076, and should be submitted
on or before October 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20770 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9916]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-57-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on February 6, 2012, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck,
North Dakota 58503, filed in Docket No. CP12-57-000, an application
pursuant to section 157.21 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to replace natural gas compression
facilities at its Elk Basin compressor station in Park County, Wyoming,
under Williston Basin's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-
487-000 et al., \1\ all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to the public for
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 30 FERC ] 61,143 (1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Williston Basin proposes to replace two natural gas-fired 225-
horsepower (HP) compressor units installed in 1941, two natural gas-
fired 330-HP compressor units installed in 1950, and one natural gas-
fired 1,100-HP compressor unit installed in 1970 with one electric-
driven 2,500-HP compressor unit. Williston Basin states that the new
2,500-HP electric compressor unit will also increase the certificated
horsepower at the Elk Basin compressor station from 4,610 HP to 4,900
Hp. Williston Basin estimates that the proposed electric replacement
compressor unit would cost $8,706,486 to install.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Keith
A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Williston Basin
Interstate Pipeline Company, 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58503, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3817 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P