[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18935-18939]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040]

Request for Public Comments on NHTSA Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Emerging Automotive
Technologies

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Automotive technology is at a moment of rapid change and may
evolve farther in the next decade than in the previous 45-plus year
history of the Agency. As the world moves toward autonomous vehicles
and innovative mobility solutions, NHTSA is interested in facilitating
the rapid advance of technologies that will promote safety. NHTSA is
commanded by Congress to protect the safety of the driving public
against unreasonable risks of harm that may occur because of the
design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle equipment, and mitigate risks of harm, including risks that may
be emerging or contingent. As NHTSA always has done when evaluating new
technologies and solutions, we will be guided by our statutory mission,
the laws we are obligated to enforce, and the benefits of the emerging
technologies appearing on America's roadways.
    NHTSA has broad enforcement authority, under existing statutes and
regulations, to address existing and emerging automotive technologies.
This proposed Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's current
views on emerging automotive technologies--including its view that when
vulnerabilities of such technology or equipment pose an unreasonable
risk to safety, those vulnerabilities constitute a safety-related
defect--and suggests guiding principles and best practices for motor
vehicle and equipment manufacturers in this context. This notice
solicits comments from the public, motor vehicle and equipment
manufacturers, and other interested

parties concerning the proposed guidance for motor vehicle and
equipment manufacturers in developing and implementing new and emerging
automotive technologies, safety compliance programs, and other business
practices in connection with such technologies.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All comments received must include the Agency name
and docket ID. Please submit your comments by only one means.
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments, all submissions
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Thus, submitting such information
makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can
be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link in
the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justine Casselle, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or Elizabeth
Mykytiuk, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
II. Legal and Policy Background
    A. NHTSA's Enforcement Authority Under the Safety Act
    B. Determining the Existence of a Defect
    C. Determining an Unreasonable Risk to Safety
III. Guidance and Recommended Best Practices: Safety-Related
Defects, Unreasonable Risk, and Emerging Technologies

I. Executive Summary

    Recent and continuing advances in automotive technology have great
potential to generate significant safety benefits. Today's motor
vehicles are increasingly equipped with electronics, sensors, and
computing power that enable the deployment of safety technologies and
functions, such as forward-collision warning, automatic-emergency
braking, and lane keeping assist, which dramatically enhance safety.
New technologies may not only prevent drivers from crashing, but may
even do some or all of the driving for them. The safety implications of
such emerging technologies are vast. Importantly, as these technologies
become more widespread, manufacturers must ensure their safe
development and implementation.
    To facilitate automotive safety innovation, to aid in the
successful development and deployment of emerging automotive
technologies, and to protect the public from potential flaws or threats
associated with emerging automotive technologies, NHTSA is publishing,
for guidance and informational purposes, this Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin setting forth the Agency's current view of its enforcement
authority and principles guiding its exercise of that authority. This
includes guiding principles and best practices for use by motor vehicle
and equipment manufacturers. NHTSA is not establishing a binding set of
rules, nor is the Agency suggesting that one particular set of
practices applies in all situations. The Agency recognizes that best
practices vary depending on circumstances, and manufacturers remain
free to choose the solution that best fits their needs and the demands
of automotive safety. However, to address safety concerns associated
with emerging technologies in a comprehensive way, and to advise
regulated entities of the Agency's present views of certain enforcement
subjects and issues, NHTSA submits this proposed Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin for public comment. Based on the Agency's review and analysis
of that input, it will develop and issue a final ``Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin'' on this topic.

II. Legal and Policy Background

A. NHTSA's Enforcement Authority Under the Safety Act

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended
(``Safety Act''), 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., provides the basis and
framework for NHTSA's enforcement authority over motor vehicle and
motor vehicle equipment defects and noncompliances with federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). This authority includes
investigations, administrative proceedings, civil penalties, and civil
enforcement actions. While automation and other advanced technologies
may modify motor vehicle and equipment design, NHTSA's statutory
enforcement authority is general and flexible, which allows it to keep
pace with innovation. The Agency has the authority to respond to a
safety problem posed by new technologies in the same manner it has
responded to safety problems posed by more established automotive
technology and equipment, such as carburetors, the powertrain, vehicle
control systems, and forward collision warning systems--by determining
the existence of a defect that poses an unreasonable risk to motor
vehicle safety and ordering the manufacturer to conduct a recall. See
49 U.S.C. 30118(b). This enforcement authority applies notwithstanding
the presence or absence of an FMVSS for any particular type of advanced
technology. See, e.g., United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350,
1351 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (NHTSA ``may seek the recall of a motor vehicle
either when a vehicle has `a defect related to motor vehicle safety' or
when a vehicle `does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety
standard.' '').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A manufacturer's obligation to recall motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment determined to have a safety-related defect
is separate and distinct from its obligation to recall motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that fail to comply with an
applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Safety Act, NHTSA has authority over motor vehicles,
equipment included in or on a motor vehicle at the time of delivery to
the first purchaser (i.e., original equipment), and motor vehicle
replacement equipment. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)-(b). Motor vehicle
equipment is broadly defined to include ``any system, part, or
component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured'' and ``any
similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or
improvement of a system, part, or component.'' 49 U.S.C.
30102(a)(7)(A)-(B). The Safety Act also gives NHTSA jurisdiction over
after-market improvements, accessories, or additions to motor vehicles.
See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). All devices ``manufactured, sold,
delivered, or offered to be sold for use on public streets, roads, and
highways with the apparent purpose of safeguarding users of motor
vehicles against risk of accident, injury, or death'' are similarly
subject to NHTSA's enforcement authority. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(C).

    With respect to new and emerging technologies, NHTSA considers
automated vehicle technologies, systems, and equipment to be motor
vehicle equipment, whether they are offered to the public as part of a
new motor vehicle (as original equipment) or as an after-market
replacement(s) of or improvement(s) to original equipment. NHTSA also
considers software (including, but not necessarily limited to, the
programs, instructions, code, and data used to operate computers and
related devices), and after-market software updates, to be motor
vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Software that
enables devices not located in or on the motor vehicle to connect to
the motor vehicle or its systems could, in some circumstances, also be
considered motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, a manufacturer of new
and emerging vehicle technologies and equipment, whether it is the
supplier of the equipment or the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on
which the equipment is installed, has an obligation to notify NHTSA of
any and all safety-related defects. See 49 CFR part 573. Any
manufacturer or supplier that fails to do so may be subject to civil
penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).
    NHTSA is charged with reducing deaths, injuries, and economic
losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. See 49 U.S.C. 30101. Part
of that mandate includes ensuring that motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment, including new technologies, perform in ways that ``protect[]
the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of
the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident.'' 49
U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). This responsibility also includes the
nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. Id. In pursuit of these
safety objectives, and in the absence of adequate action by the
manufacturer, NHTSA is authorized to determine that a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment is defective and that the defect poses an
unreasonable risk to safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) and (c)(1).

B. Determining the Existence of a Defect

    Under the Safety Act, a ``defect'' includes ``any defect in
performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle equipment.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(2). It also includes a
defect in design. See United States v. General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d
420, 436 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (``Wheels''). A defect in an item of motor
vehicle equipment (including hardware, software and other electronic
systems) may be considered a defect of the motor vehicle itself. See 49
U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(F).
    Congress intended the Safety Act to represent a ``commonsense''
approach to safety and courts have followed that approach in
determining what constitutes a ``defect.'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 436.
Accord Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2004); Clarke v. TRW,
Inc., 921 F. Supp. 927, 934 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). For this reason, a defect
determination does not require an engineering explanation or root
cause, but instead ``may be based exclusively on the performance record
of the component.'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 432 (``[A] determination of a
`defect' does not require any predicate of a finding identifying
engineering, metallurgical, or manufacturing failures.''). Thus, a
motor vehicle or item of equipment contains a defect if it is subject
to a significant number of failures in normal operation, ``including
those failures occurring during `specified use' or resulting from
predictable abuse, but not including those resulting from normal
deterioration due to age and wear.'' \2\ Center for Auto Safety, 342
F.2d at 13-14 (citing Wheels, 518 F.2d at 427).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``The protection afforded by the [Safety] Act was not
limited to careful drivers who fastidiously observed speed limits
and conscientiously complied with manufacturer's instructions on
vehicle maintenance and operation . . . . [the statute provides] an
added area of safety to an owner who is lackadaisical, who neglects
regular maintenance . . .'' Wheels, 518 F.2d at 434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``significant number of failures'' is merely a ``non-de minimus''
quantity; it need not be a ``substantial percentage of the total.''
Wheels, 518 F.2d at 438 n.84. Whether there have been a ``significant
number of failures'' is a fact-specific inquiry that includes
considerations such as: The failure rate of the component in question;
the failure rates of comparable components; and the importance of the
component to the safe operation of the vehicle. Id. at 427. In
addition, where appropriate, the determination of the existence of a
defect may depend upon the failure rate in the affected class of
vehicles compared to that of other peer vehicles. See United States v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 841 F.2d 400, 412 (D.C. Cir.1988) (``X-Cars'').
Finally, to constitute a defect, the failures must be attributable to
the motor vehicle or equipment itself, rather than the driver or the
road conditions. See id.
    It must be noted, however, that in some circumstances, a crash,
injury, or death need not occur in order for a vulnerability or safety
risk to be considered a defect. The Agency relies on the performance
record of a vehicle or component in making a defect determination where
the engineering or root cause is unknown. See Wheels, 518 F.2d at 432.
Where, however, the engineering or root cause is known, the Agency need
not proceed with analyzing the performance record. See id.; see also
United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
(``Carburetors'') (finding a defect to be safety-related if it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards . . . can
definitely be expected to occur in the future.''). For software or
other electronic systems, for example, when the engineering or root
cause of the vulnerability or risk is known, a defect exists regardless
of whether there have been any actual failures.

C. Determining an Unreasonable Risk to Safety

    In order to support a recall, a defect must be related to motor
vehicle safety. United States v. General Motors Corp., 561 F.2d 923,
928-29 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``Pitman Arms''). In the context of the Safety
Act, ``motor vehicle safety'' refers to an ``unreasonable risk of
accidents'' and an ``unreasonable risk of death or injury in an
accident.'' 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). Thus, while the defect analysis has
generally entailed a retrospective look at how many failures have
occurred (see Wheels, Center for Auto Safety, and Pitman Arms), the
safety-relatedness question is forward-looking, and concerns the
hazards that may arise in the future. See, e.g., Carburetors, 565 F.2d
at 758.
    In general, for a defect to present an ``unreasonable risk,'' there
must be a likelihood that it will cause or be associated with a ``non-
negligible'' number of crashes, injuries, or deaths in the future. See,
e.g., Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759. This prediction of future hazards
is called a ``risk analysis.'' See, e.g., Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d at 924
(Leventhal, J., dissenting) (``GM presented a `risk analysis' which
predicts the likely number of future injuries or deaths to be expected
in the remaining service life of the affected models''). A forward-
looking risk analysis is compelled by the purpose of the Safety Act,
which ``is not to protect individuals from the risks associated with
defective vehicles only after serious injuries have already occurred;
it is to prevent serious injuries stemming from established defects
before they occur.'' Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759 (emphasis added).

    If the hazard is sufficiently serious, and at least some harm,
however small, is expected to occur in the future, the risk may be
deemed unreasonable. Carburetors, 565 F.2d at 759 (``In the context of
this case . . . even an `exceedingly small' number of injuries from
this admittedly defective and clearly dangerous carburetor appears to
us `unreasonably large.' ''). In other words, where a defect presents a
``clearly'' or ``potentially dangerous'' hazard, and where ``at least
some such hazards''--even an ``exceedingly small'' number--will occur
in the future, that defect is necessarily safety-related. See
Carburetors, 565 F.2d 754. This is so regardless of whether any
injuries have already occurred, or whether the projected number of
failures/injuries in the future is trending down. See id. at 759.
Moreover, a defect may be considered ``per se'' safety-related if it
causes the failure of a critical component; causes a vehicle fire;
causes a loss of vehicle control; or suddenly moves the driver away
from steering, accelerator, and brake controls--regardless of how many
injuries or accidents are likely to occur in the future. See
Carburetors, 565 F.2d 754 (engine fires); Pitman Arms, 561 F.2d 923
(loss of control); United States v. Ford Motor Co., 453 F. Supp. 1240
(D.D.C. 1978) (``Wipers'') (loss of visibility); United States v. Ford
Motor Co., 421 F. Supp. 1239, 1243-1244 (D.D.C. 1976) (``Seatbacks'')
(loss of control). Similarly, where it is alleged that a defect ``is
systematic and is prevalent in a particular class [of motor vehicles or
equipment], . . . this is prima facie an unreasonable risk.'' Pitman
Arms, 561 F.2d at 929.

III. Guidance and Recommended Best Practices: Safety-Related Defects,
Unreasonable Risk, and Emerging Technologies

    Consistent with the foregoing background, NHTSA's enforcement
authority concerning safety-related defects in motor vehicles and
equipment extends and applies equally to new and emerging automotive
technologies. This includes, for example, automation technology and
equipment, as well as advanced crash avoidance technologies. Where an
autonomous vehicle or other emerging automotive technology causes
crashes or injuries, or has a manifested safety-related failure or
defect, and a manufacturer fails to act, NHTSA will exercise its
enforcement authority to the fullest extent. Similarly, should the
Agency determine that an autonomous vehicle or other new automotive
technology presents a safety concern, the Agency will evaluate such
technology through its investigative authority to determine whether the
technology presents an unreasonable risk to safety.
    To avoid violating Safety Act requirements and standards,
manufacturers of emerging technology and the motor vehicles on which
such technology is installed are strongly encouraged to take steps to
proactively identify and resolve safety concerns before their products
are available for use on public roadways. The Agency recognizes that
much emerging automotive technology heavily involves electronic systems
(such as hardware, software, sensors, global positioning systems (GPS)
and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) safety communications systems). The Agency
acknowledges that the increased use of electronic systems in motor
vehicles and equipment may raise new and different safety concerns.
However, the complexities of these systems do not diminish
manufacturers' duties under the Safety Act--both motor vehicle
manufacturers and equipment manufacturers remain responsible for
ensuring that their vehicles or equipment are free of safety-related
defects or noncompliances, and do not otherwise pose an unreasonable
risk to safety. Manufacturers are also reminded that they remain
responsible for promptly reporting to NHTSA any safety-related defects
or noncompliances, as well as timely notifying owners and dealers of
the same.
    In assessing whether a motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle
equipment poses an unreasonable risk to safety, NHTSA considers the
likelihood of the occurrence of a harm (i.e., fire, stalling, or
malicious cybersecurity attack), the potential frequency of a harm, the
severity of a harm, known engineering or root cause, and other relevant
factors. Where a threatened harm is substantial, low potential
frequency may not carry as much weight in NHTSA's analysis.
    Software installed in or on a motor vehicle--which is motor vehicle
equipment--presents its own unique safety risks. Because software often
interacts with a motor vehicle's critical safety systems (i.e., systems
encompassing critical control functions such as braking, steering, or
acceleration) the operation of those systems could be substantially
altered by after-market software updates. Additionally, software
located outside the motor vehicle (i.e., portable devices with vehicle-
related software applications) could be used to affect and control a
motor vehicle's safety systems. If software has manifested a safety-
related performance failure, or otherwise presents an unreasonable risk
to safety, then the software failure or safety-risk constitutes a
defect compelling a recall.
    In the case of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, NHTSA will weigh
several factors in determining whether a vulnerability poses an
unreasonable risk to safety (and thus constitutes a safety-related
defect), including: (i) The amount of time elapsed since the
vulnerability was discovered (e.g., less than one day, three months, or
more than six months); (ii) the level of expertise needed to exploit
the vulnerability (e.g., whether a layman can exploit the vulnerability
or whether it takes experts to do so); (iii) the accessibility of
knowledge of the underlying system (e.g., whether how the system works
is public knowledge or whether it is sensitive and restricted); (iv)
the necessary window of opportunity to exploit the vulnerability (e.g.,
an unlimited window or a very narrow window); and, (v) the level of
equipment needed to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., standard or highly
specialized).
    NHTSA uses those factors, and others, to help assess the overall
probability of a malicious cybersecurity attack. The probability of an
attack includes circumstances in which a vulnerability has been
identified, but no actual incidents have been documented or confirmed.
Confirmed field incidents may increase the weight NHTSA places on the
probability of an attack in its assessment. Even before evidence of an
attack, it is foreseeable that hackers will try to exploit
cybersecurity vulnerabilities. For instance, if a cybersecurity
vulnerability in any of a motor vehicle's entry points (e.g., Wi-Fi,
infotainment systems, the OBD-II port) allows remote access to a motor
vehicle's critical safety systems (i.e., systems encompassing critical
control functions such as braking, steering, or acceleration), NHTSA
may consider such a vulnerability to be a safety-related defect
compelling a recall.
    Manufacturers should consider adopting a life-cycle approach to
safety risks when developing automated vehicles, other innovative
automotive technologies, and safety compliance programs and other
business practices in connection with such technologies. A life-cycle
approach would include ``elements of assessment, design,
implementation, and operations as well as an effective testing and
certification program.'' National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, A Summary of Cybersecurity Best Practices, (Oct. 2014),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/

NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2014/
812075_CybersecurityBestPractices.pdf. Considering hardware, software,
and network and cloud security, manufacturers should consider
developing a simulator, using case scenarios and threat modeling on all
systems, sub-systems, and devices, to test for safety risks, including
cybersecurity vulnerabilities, at all steps in the manufacturing
process for the entire supply chain, to implement an effective risk
mitigation plan. See id.
    Manufacturers of emerging technologies and the motor vehicles on
which such technology is installed have a continuing obligation to
proactively identify safety concerns and mitigate the risks of harm. If
a manufacturer discovers or is otherwise made aware of any defects,
noncompliances, or other unreasonable risks to safety after the vehicle
and/or technology has been in safe operation for some time, then it
should strongly consider promptly contacting the appropriate NHTSA
personnel to determine the necessary next steps. Where a manufacturer
fails to adequately address a safety concern, NHTSA, when appropriate,
will explicitly address that concern through its enforcement authority.
    Applicability/Legal Statement: This proposed Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's current views on the topic of emerging
automotive technology and suggests guiding principles and best
practices to be utilized by motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers
in this context. This proposed Bulletin is not a final agency action
and is intended as guidance only. This proposed Bulletin does not have
the force or effect of law. This Bulletin is not intended, nor can it
be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party against
NHTSA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the United States.
These recommended practices do not establish any defense to any
violations of the Safety Act, or regulations thereunder, or violation
of any statutes or regulations that NHTSA administers. This Bulletin
may be revised in writing without notice to reflect changes in the
Agency's views and analysis, or to clarify and update text.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101-30103, 30116-30121, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2016 under authority
delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-07353 Filed 3-29-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29182]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-88-013]

Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc.;
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 7, 2014, Entergy Services, Inc., as agent
on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies \1\ submitted a correction
to its April 29, 2014 subsequent compliance filing, correcting the
calculation of the bandwidth remedy for the period of June 1, 2005
through December 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Entergy Operating Companies are Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC,
Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 28, 2014.

    Dated: May 13, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11723 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2329-2331]
[FR Doc No: 2012-684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66125; File No. SR-EDGA-2011-41]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGA Rule 1.5(q)

January 10, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 29, 2011, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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

    EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange''), proposes to
amend EDGA Rule 1.5(q) to change the starting time of the Pre-Opening
Session from 7 a.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') to 8 a.m. ET. The Exchange
proposes to make a conforming amendment to Rule 14.1(c)(2) to change
the reference for the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 7
a.m. ET to 8 a.m. ET. Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to
amend the rule text from SR-EDGA-2011-28,\3\ which proposed to change
the Pre-Opening Session starting time to 7 a.m. ET. The text of the
proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65196 (August 25,
2011), 76 FR 54267 (August 31, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-28). For the
purposes of this filing, the Exchange will refer to SR-EDGA-2011-28
as the ``August 25 Rule Filing.'' Given that the August 25 Rule
Filing was immediately effective but not operative, the Exchange
proposes to amend its rule text in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange filed a rule change to amend EDGA Rule 1.5(q) to
change the starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 8 a.m. ET to 7
a.m. ET.\4\ This change would have allowed the Exchange to compete with
other exchanges that open their markets for entry of orders prior to 8
a.m. ET.\5\ The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text of its August
25 Rule Filing at this time in order to accommodate Members who
initially expressed an interest in the change in Pre-Opening Session
time to begin at 7 a.m. ET; but, after further consideration, Members
confirmed that they were no longer interested because the additional
costs and resources needed to open earlier outweighed any incidental
benefits from increased trading activity that they would incur. As
such, based on the Exchange's feedback from Members it surveyed in
September 2011, the Exchange confirmed that no Members adversely relied
upon the August 25 Rule Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. The Exchange initially proposed to expand its
operational hours to open the System earlier so that Members could
enter and execute orders beginning at 7 a.m. ET rather than 8 a.m.
ET.
    \5\ See The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Rule 4617 (opens at 7 a.m.
EST). See also NASDAQ OMX BX Rule 4617 (opens at 7 a.m. EST); NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (opens at 1 a.m. Pacific Time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange has not implemented the 7 a.m. ET
starting time for the Pre-Opening Session because it has not notified
its Members pursuant to the language in the August 25 Rule Filing.\6\
In addition, the Exchange notes Members are not adversely impacted by
the amendment to the rule text of the August 25 Rule Filing as no
Members were required to incur any costs or make any changes to their
systems to comply with the earlier Pre-Opening time if they were not
planning to trade beginning at 7 a.m. ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65196 (August 25,
2011), 76 FR 54267 (August 31, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-28), stating the
Exchange will provide notice to Members in an information circular
when the proposed rule change will be effective, which will be no
later than January 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.5(q)
and make a conforming amendment to Rule 14.1(c)(2) to change the
starting time of the Pre-Opening Session from 7 a.m. ET back to 8 a.m.
ET as it appeared before the August 25 Rule Filing.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in that the
proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in, securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that amending its rule text from the August 25
Rule Filing will afford the Exchange additional time to evaluate the
potential benefits of an earlier starting time for the Pre-Opening
Session. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is not
discriminating against its Members given that the Exchange contacted
Members to discuss amending the text of the August 25 Rule Filing, and
the Exchange confirmed that no Members had adjusted their
infrastructure or incurred any costs in reliance on the August 25 Rule
Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date

of filing.\10\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange notes that waiver of this requirement will permit the Exchange
to immediately remove language from its rules that could otherwise
create confusion for Members because the 7 a.m. ET start time has not
been implemented.\12\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver would allow the Exchange to notify
its Members by January 1, 2012 as prescribed in the August 25 Rule
Filing and would immediately provide certainty with respect to the
Exchange's rules regarding the start time for the Pre-Opening Session.
For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to
be operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65196 (August 25,
2011), 76 FR 54267 (August 31, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-28), stating the
Exchange will provide notice to Members in an information circular
when the proposed rule change will be effective, which will be no
later than January 1, 2012.
    \13\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2011-41 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2011-41. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2011-41 and should be submitted on
or before February 7, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-684 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15013-15015]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07242]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85546; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Equity 7, Section 118(a)

April 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 28, 2019, 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 Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on April 1, 2019.
    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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
transaction fees at Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1), (2), and (3) to adjust
the qualifying terms for an existing credit it offers to members with
orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange in all three Tapes.
    The Exchange operates on the ``maker-taker'' model, whereby it pays
credits to members that provide liquidity and charges fees to members
that access liquidity. Currently, the Exchange offers several different
credits for orders that display quotes/orders in securities (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) in Tapes A, B, and C
that provide liquidity to the Exchange. Among these credits, the
Exchange offers a $0.0027 per share executed credit to a member (i)
with shares of liquidity provided in all securities during the month
representing more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume \3\ during the
month, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and (ii)
adds Customer,\4\ Professional,\5\ Firm,\6\ Non-NOM Market Maker \7\
and/or Broker-Dealer \8\ liquidity in Non-Penny

Pilot Options of 0.40% or more of total industry average daily volume
(``ADV'') in the customer clearing range for Equity and ETF option
contracts per day in a month on The Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'').
The Exchange proposes to recalibrate the credit by eliminating the
requirement that a member must add liquidity ``in Non-Penny Pilot
Options'' on NOM to qualify for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' means 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 is excluded from both total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.
    \4\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a participant for clearing in the Customer range at
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional,'' as defined in Chapter I, Section 1 of the NOM
rules.
    \5\ A ``Professional'' is defined in Chapter I, Section 1 of the
NOM rules as ``any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or
dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s).''
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
    \7\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \8\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Exchange first added this particular credit program in
2016,\9\ it limited the availability of the credit to members that add
liquidity on NOM in Non-Penny Pilot Options because the Exchange wanted
to specifically encourage liquidity-adding behavior on NOM in less
liquid option classes in order to help improve the markets for those
options classes. The Exchange still wishes to encourage such market-
improving behavior for Non-Penny Pilot Options, but it seeks to revise
the credit so that it also encourages members to add liquidity in other
options classes on NOM, including Penny Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78354 (July 19,
2016), 81 FR 48487 (July 25, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-102).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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
\13\ (``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.\14\ 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.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \14\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \15\ 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'. . . .'' \16\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to eliminate
the credit-qualifying requirement that a member must add liquidity on
NOM specifically in Non-Penny Pilot Options [sic]. Under Rule 7018(a),
the various credits the Exchange provides for members that add
liquidity require members to contribute significantly to market quality
by providing certain levels of Consolidated Volume through one or more
of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and by also contributing
volume on NOM. Although the Exchange originally designed this
particular credit to encourage members to add liquidity on NOM only in
Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
revise the credit so that it more broadly encourages members to add
liquidity on NOM in all options classes. Indeed, the proposed change
will help to improve the market on NOM for all, rather than a subset
of, options classes.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change [sic] is equitably
allocated among members, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination. By eliminating the requirement that a member must add
liquidity only in Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange will
potentially expand the availability of the credit to additional
members, including those that provide liquidity on NOM primarily or
exclusively in Penny Pilot Options. Moreover, all similarly situated
members are equally capable of qualifying for the credit if they choose
to meet the revised requirements. The Exchange notes that the proposed
change applies to securities of all Tapes.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed revised requirements for
qualifying for the credit are proportionate to the amount of the credit
and that the revised requirements equitably reflect the purpose of the
credit, which is to incentivize members to transact greater volume on
Nasdaq and NOM.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that the proposed volume threshold is
consistent with other volume-based credits that the Exchange offers in
Equity 7, Section 118(a)(1), (2), and (3) to members for displayed
quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail
Orders) that provide liquidity. Nasdaq currently offers a variety of
credits for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) that add liquidity, some of which are linked
to activity on NOM and some of which relate to activity on Nasdaq only,
which range from $0.0025 per share executed to $0.00305 per share
executed, and which apply progressively more stringent requirements in
return for higher per share executed credits.

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 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. The proposal to eliminate from
the credit the requirement that members provide liquidity on NOM in
Non-Penny Pilot Options is designed to promote competition by improving
overall market quality on NOM. The Exchange also notes that its
proposed change reflects the Exchange's need to balance the incentives
that it provides in return for the market improving behavior it seeks
to incentivize. The Exchange has limited funds to apply toward
incentives, and therefore must adjust its credit tier qualification
criteria to ensure that it applies its limited funds in the most
efficient manner.
    In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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-2019-023 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-2019-023. 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-2019-023 and should be submitted
on or before May 3, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07242 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23255-23257]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0337; Product Identifier 2020-NM-044-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A330-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report that seven spoiler servo-controls (SSCs) lost
hydraulic locking function due to a sheared seal on the blocking valve.
This proposed AD would require repetitive operational tests of the
hydraulic locking function on each SSC and replacement if necessary, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 11,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0337.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0337; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0337;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-044-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0054, dated March 11, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0054'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-941 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that seven SSCs lost
hydraulic locking function due to a sheared seal on the blocking valve.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address loss of hydraulic locking
function on the SSCs, which in combination with one engine inoperative
at takeoff, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0054 describes procedures for repetitive operational
tests of the hydraulic locking function on each SSC (any type), when
fitted on the blue or yellow hydraulic circuits, and replacing any
affected SSC with a serviceable part. This material is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop

in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0054 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result EASA AD 2020-0054
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0054 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0054 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0054 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0337 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510...........................              $0             $510           $2,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255....         $35,000          $35,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0337; Product Identifier 2020-NM-
044-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by June 11, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-941 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that seven spoiler servo-
controls (SSCs) lost hydraulic locking function due to a sheared
seal on the blocking valve. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
loss of hydraulic locking function on the SSCs, which in combination
with one engine inoperative at takeoff, could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0054, dated March 11, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0054'').

(h) Exception to EASA AD 2020-0054

    The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0054 does not apply to
this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0054 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0054, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0337.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on April 17, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08752 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 55593-55594]
[DOCID:fr25se08-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2008-0255]

Pipeline Safety: Workshop on Anomaly Assessment and Repair

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: Recent observations by PHMSA indicate possible inconsistencies
in how natural gas transmission pipeline operators assess and repair
anomalies, such as corrosion defects, and apply the results of
calculations to their decision making for further action. Special
permits granted by PHMSA over the past two years prescribe specific
assessment and repair procedures for pipelines operating under a class
location change and maximum allowable operating pressure special
permit. Moreover, recent research indicating that existing methods of
predicting the remaining strength of corroded pipe could provide non-
conservative results (i.e., the pipe will fail at a pressure lower than
that predicted) in some circumstances. Non-conservative results could
be obtained even when the dimensions of pipeline anomalies are known
with precision.
    PHMSA is sponsoring a Workshop on Assessment and Repair of
Anomalies in Pipelines to allow stakeholders of the pipeline safety
community to learn about and discuss these research results, current
evaluation practices, and methods to assure pipeline safety. The
discussion of current evaluation practices and methods to assure
pipeline safety should include: A review of safety factors used to
evaluate anomalies when assessing in-line tool and excavation results,
review of how outside forces and overpressure may effect anomaly
stresses, how ILI tool accuracy is applied to anomaly evaluation, and
how anomaly growth rates in assessments are considered.

DATES: The workshop will be held on October 22, 2008. Name badge pick-
up and on-site registration will be available starting at 7:30 a.m.
with the agenda taking place from 8 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m.
Refer to the meeting Web site for updated agenda and times: http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/Mtg55.mtg. Please note that the workshop
will not be Webcast. However, presentations will be available on the
meeting Web site within 30 days following the workshop.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Gaylord National Resort and
Convention Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD 20745.
Hotel reservations under the ``United States Department of
Transportation 2'' room block for the night of October 21,
2008, can be made at 1-301-965-2000. A daily rate of $233 is available.
The meeting room will be posted at the hotel on the days of the
workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Kieba at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Registration: Members of the public may attend this free workshop.
To help assure that adequate space is provided, all attendees are
encouraged to register for the workshop at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/
meetings/Mtg55.mtg. Hotel reservations must be made by contacting the
hotel directly.
    Comments: Members of the public may also submit written comments,
either before or after the workshop. Comments should reference Docket
ID PHMSA-2008-0255. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Dot Docket Management System, Room W12-140,
on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http:/
/www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Regulatory Analyses and
Notices section of the Supplementary Information for additional
information.

    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Max Kieba by October 15, 2008.
    Issue Description: The current regulations contained in 49 CFR
192.485 and 192.713, allows latitude in methods used for assessing and
remediating pipe with corrosion anomalies to restore the serviceability
of pipe. PHMSA has found a wide variation in operators' interpretation
of how to meet the requirements of pipeline safety regulations in
assessing, evaluating, and remediating corrosion anomalies. PHMSA
emphasizes that, while the workshop will involve issues related to Part
192, the technical discussions on research and methods are of relevance
to hazardous liquid pipeline operators. For this reason, PHMSA also
encourages hazardous liquid pipeline operators to attend the meeting.
    Transmission pipelines often operate at high pressures. Pipeline
design requirements assure that pipe has

sufficient strength to contain these high pressures and to provide an
additional safety margin. Pipeline in-service can become degraded due
to time independent and time dependent threats. Time dependent threats
include corrosion and other defects which can grow over time and, if
allowed to continue unchecked, may reduce the pipe wall thickness to
the point of failure. Time independent threats include excavation
damage, which are one-time events that may damage the pipeline's
protective coating, or the pipe itself (e.g., dent, gouge, crack, or
puncture). The defects caused by time dependent or independent threats
can reduce the safety margin for retaining the pipeline operating
pressure.
    Pipeline operators predominantly use one of three accepted methods
to calculate the remaining strength of pipelines containing metal loss
anomalies: (1) B31G, (2) Modified B31G, and (3) RSTRENG. These methods
consider the length and depth of anomalies (i.e., areas of metal loss)
and produce estimates of the pressure at which the pipe will fail.
Pipeline operators are required to use these estimates to (1) determine
whether pipeline pressure must be reduced to provide an additional
safety margin, and (2) determine the urgency with which anomalies must
be investigated, evaluated, and repaired.
    In practice, many anomalies are often identified by inspection of
the pipeline using in-line inspection (ILI) tools. These tools provide
estimates of the length and depth of anomalies that are used in
calculating remaining pipeline strength. The dimensions estimated using
ILI tools are subject to uncertainty because of variables that affect
the accuracy in determining wall thickness and length.
    Recent research sponsored by PHMSA and industry, evaluated the
accuracy of the methods currently used to calculate the remaining
strength of corroded pipelines. The evaluation used data from
historical and recent bench tests in which pipe with known defects
(some with real corrosion defects and some with intentionally machined
defects) were pressurized to failure. The defect size and pipe
characteristics were used to calculate a predicted failure pressure
using each of the analytical methods being evaluated. The failure
pressure predicted by each method was compared to the empirical failure
pressure determined during the test to identify if the predicted
failure pressure was conservative or non-conservative. This work
involved using the analytical methods to calculate the remaining
strength of pipe containing defects whose dimensions could be measured
with a high degree of precision. In some cases, the pipe failed at
pressures lower than those predicted (i.e., the predicted failure
pressure was non-conservative). This occurred most often for deep
anomalies (e.g., >60% wall loss) in high-strength pipe (e.g., grade API
5L X-52 and above). All of the accepted methods for calculating
remaining pipe strength were found to produce non-conservative
estimates of failure pressure in some instances.
    The workshop will allow the review and discussion of appropriate
repair criteria for evaluating anomalies to meet regulatory code
requirements for the permanent field repair of imperfections and
damages. The workshop is also intended to allow representatives of the
pipeline industry, regulatory agencies, the public, and other
stakeholders to discuss the implications of research results and the
potential need for regulatory changes or modification of industry
standards.

Preliminary Workshop Agenda

    The workshop will include:
    (1) Overview of recent research results,
    (2) Perspective of industry and regulators on the implications of
the research results, and
    (3) Discussion of issues related to reliable application of methods
for predicting failure pressure of pipe with metal loss defects,
including:
    a. Treatment of ILI tool accuracy,
    b. Consideration of anomaly growth rates.
    c. Appropriate repair criteria.
    Refer to the meeting Web site for a more detailed agenda: http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/Mtg55.mtg.
    PHMSA publishes requirements for the assessment and repair of
anomalies discovered by ILI tools or direct measurement in 49 CFR Part
192 for gas pipelines and Part 195 for hazardous liquids pipelines.
PHMSA also publishes other anomaly assessment and repair requirements
for pipelines under special permit for class location and alternative
MAOP which vary from and are more stringent than the requirements
contained in regulations. PHMSA plans to discuss assessment and repair
requirements including the application of factors of safety, ILI tool
tolerance, and corrosion growth rates. PHMSA will consider the
discussion at the workshop and comments submitted to the docket in
determining whether changes to regulatory requirements for anomaly
assessment and repair are needed in light of the new research results
and, if so, what those changes should be.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 19, 2008.
William H. Gute,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-22602 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 67292-67293]
[DOCID:fr28no07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. ER08-1-000, ER08-1-001]

Yuma Power Limited Liability Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 20, 2007.
    Yuma Power Limited Liability Company (Yuma Power) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Yuma
Power also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Yuma Power requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Yuma Power.
    On November 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the
requests for blanket approval under part 34

(Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Yuma Power,
should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR
385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
December 20, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Yuma Power is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Yuma Power, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Yuma Power's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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
filed to access the document. 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
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23070 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 73314]
[DOCID:fr02de08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-242]

Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 25, 2008.
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and
waters.
    b. Project Number: 459-242.
    c. Date Filed: October 21, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ameren/UE.
    e. Name of Project: Osage Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed lease agreements are located near mile
marker 83.7 on the main channel of Lake of the Ozarks and +0.5 on
Feaster Cove, in Benton County, Missouri.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeff Green, Shoreline Supervisor, Ameren/
UE, P.O. Box 993, Lake Ozark, MO 65049,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: December 24, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, 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 any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE,
requests approval to grant conditional lease agreements to eight single
dwelling property owners with buildings either partially or totally
within the project boundary. This application was filed after
consultation with the appropriate agencies.
    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-459) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28581 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P