[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20082-20087]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0006]

Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Morgan Motor Company Limited; Receipt
of Applications for Renewals of Temporary Exemptions From the Advanced
Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for renewals of temporary
exemptions and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555,
Koenigsegg Automotive AB Koenigsegg'') and Morgan Motor Company Limited
(``Morgan'') have petitioned the agency for renewals of temporary
exemption from advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection.''The basis for each application is that
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
    This notice of receipt of applications for renewal of temporary
exemptions is published in accordance with the statutory provisions of
49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). Please note that we are publishing together the
notice of receipt of the two applications for renewal to ensure
efficient use of agency resources and to facilitate processing of the
applications. NHTSA has made no judgments on the merits of each
application. NHTSA will consider each application separately. We ask
that commenters also consider each application separately and submit
comments specific to individual applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    We shall consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent
possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-
2992; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \1\ The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving
protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in
moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes. The rule accomplished this by establishing new test
requirements and injury criteria and specifying the use of an entire
family of test dummies: the then-existing dummy representing 50th
percentile adult males, and new dummies representing 5th percentile
adult females, 6-year-old children, 3-year-old children, and 1-year-old
infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats.
    The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers (i.e., original vehicle manufacturers
producing or assembling fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in
the United States) were not subject to the advanced air bag
requirements until September 1, 2006.
    In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers which
have petitioned on the basis of substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
    Although NHTSA has granted a number of these petitions in
situations where the manufacturer is supplying standard air bags in
lieu of advanced air bags,\2\ NHTSA is considering (1) whether it is in
the public interest to continue to grant such petitions, particularly
in the same manner as in the past, given the number of years these
requirements have now been in effect and the benefits of advanced air
bags, and (2) to the extent such petitions are granted, what plans and
countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants, short of
compliance with the advanced air bags, should be expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the passage of time since the advanced air bag requirements
were established and have been implemented, and in light of the
benefits of advanced air bags, NHTSA is considering whether it is in
the public interest to continue to grant exemptions from these
requirements, particularly in the same manner as in the past. The costs
of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208
are costs that all entrants to the U.S. automobile marketplace should
expect to bear. Furthermore, NHTSA understands that, in contrast to the

initial years after the advanced air bag requirements went into effect,
low volume manufacturers now have access to advanced air bag
technology. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the expense
of advanced air bag technology may not now be sufficient, in and of
itself, to justify the grant of a petition for a hardship exemption
from the advanced air bag requirements.
    NHTSA further notes that exemptions from motor vehicle safety
standards are to be granted on a ``temporary basis.'' \3\ In prior
petitions NHTSA has granted temporary exemptions from the advanced air
bag requirements as a means of affording eligible manufacturers a
transition period to comply with the exempted standard. Accordingly, in
deciding whether to grant an exemption based on substantial economic
hardship, NHTSA ordinarily considers the steps that the manufacturer
has already taken to achieve compliance, as well as the future steps
the manufacturer plans to take during the exemption period and the
estimated date by which full compliance will be achieved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
    \4\ 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA invites comment on whether and in what circumstances (e.g.,
nature of vehicles, number of vehicles, level of efforts to comply with
the requirements, timing as to number of years since the requirements
were implemented, etc.) it should continue to grant petitions for
exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We
note that any policy statements we may make in this area would not have
the effect of precluding manufacturers from submitting subsequent
petitions for exemption. However, we believe it could be helpful for
manufacturers to know our general views in advance of submitting a
petition.
    We also request comment on the issue of, to the extent such
petitions are granted, what plans and countermeasures to protect child
and infant occupants, short of compliance with the advanced air bags,
should be expected. We note that in responding to some recent petitions
for exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
NHTSA has considered the fact that the petitioner planned to install
some countermeasures for the protection of child passengers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., grant of petition of Think Technology AS, 74 FR
40634-01 (Aug. 12, 2009); grant of petition of Ferrari S.p.A., 74 FR
36303-02 (July 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also invites comment on the likelihood that a child or infant
will be a passenger in either a Morgan or Koenigsegg vehicle sold in
the U.S.
    As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication
of any temporary exemption granted by this agency. In the present case,
we are addressing two petitions that seek renewals of temporary
exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements. Each petitioner is a
manufacturer of low volume, specialty sports cars.

II. Overview of Petitions for Economic Hardship Exemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Koenigsegg Automotive AB (``Koenigsegg'') and Morgan Motor
Company (``Morgan'') have petitioned the agency for renewals of
temporary exemptions from certain advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 (S14).
    The basis for Koenigsegg's application and for Morgan's application
is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship \6\ to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with that standard.
A copy of each petition \7\ is available for review and has been placed
in the docket for this notice. The agency closely examines and
considers the information provided by manufacturers in support of these
factors, and, in addition, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A),
determines whether exemption is in the public interest and consistent
with the Safety Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ When considering financial matters involving companies based
in the European Union (EU), it is important to recognize that EU and
U.S. accounting principles have certain differences in their
treatment of revenue, expenses, and profits. Public statements by EU
manufacturers relating to financial results should be understood in
this context. This agency analyzes claims of financial hardship
carefully and in accordance with U.S. accounting principles.
    \7\ Morgan has requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR
Part 512 for certain business and financial information submitted as
part of its petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the
information placed in the docket does not contain such information
that the agency has determined to be confidential.
    \8\ The Safety Act is codified as Title 49, United States Code,
Chapter 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a
Safety Act standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \9\ the
statute also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on
reapplication. Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that the
agency's decision to grant an initial petition in no way predetermines
that the agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions, thereby
imparting semi-permanent exemption from a safety standard. Exempted
manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind that the agency is
directed to consider financial hardship as but one factor, along with
the manufacturer's on-going good faith efforts to comply with the
regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act,
generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 U.S.C 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ``If an application for renewal
of temporary exemption that meets the requirements of Sec.  555.5 has
been filed not later than 60 days before the termination date of an
exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the Administrator
grants or denies the application for renewal.'' In the case of the
petitions for renewal from both Koenigsegg and Morgan, each
manufacturer submitted its petition for renewal by the deadline stated
in 49 CFR 555.8(e).

III. Petition of Koenigsegg

    Background--Koenigsegg Automotive is a Swedish corporation formed
in 1999 to produce high-performance sports cars, which are not intended
for daily commuting purposes. Koenigsegg is a privately owned company
with fewer than 100 shareholders, and manufactures fewer than 50 cars
per year. At the time Koenigsegg applied for its initial exemption, the
Koenigsegg product line for U.S. sale consisted of the CC model. The
Koenigsegg CCX was developed as the next generation of Koenigsegg
vehicles after production of the CCR model ended on December 30, 2005.
The CCX model (the subject of Koenigsegg's petitions for temporary
exemption) was scheduled to go into production in 2006 and to continue
at least through the end of 2009. Originally, planning to sell vehicles
only in the European, Mid-East, and Far-East markets, Koenigsegg
decided in late 2005 to seek entry to the U.S. market for reasons
related to ongoing financial viability. The retail price of the CCX is
reported to be over $700,000 per vehicle.
    In a Federal Register document of April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17608),
Koenigsegg was granted a temporary exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and from
certain provisions of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment for

the CCX. The exemption was granted for the period from April 9, 2007
(the date of Federal Register publication of the grant of Koenigsegg's
petition) through December 31, 2009. In accordance with 49 CFR part
555, the basis for the grant was that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard, and the exemption would have a
negligible impact on motor vehicle safety.
    In a submission dated October 29, 2009, Koenigsegg petitioned for a
partial renewal of its temporary exemption, seeking a temporary
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements only for the CCX.
Koenigsegg did not seek renewal of the exemption from FMVSS No. 108
requirements. Koenigsegg sought a renewal of temporary exemption from
the advanced air bag requirements for the CCX for an additional three
years, from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012.
    As discussed in further detail below, the petitioner argued that it
tried in good faith, but could not bring the vehicle into compliance
with the advanced air bag requirements, and would incur substantial
economic hardship if it cannot sell continue to sell vehicles in the
U.S.
    Eligibility. Koenigsegg is a small, privately-owned company with at
present, 40 full-time staff members and several part-time employees.
Koenigsegg advises NHTSA that it is not affiliated with any other
automobile manufacturer. At the time Koenigsegg submitted its petition
to NHTSA, Koenigsegg was negotiating to purchase SAAB Automobile, but
SAAB was not sold to Koenigsegg.
    The company is a small volume manufacturer whose total production
has been between four and eight vehicles per year for the past four
years. According to profit and loss accounts provided by Koenigsegg,
the company has experienced losses in calendar year (CY) 2006 of
$3,771,571,\10\ losses in CY 2007 of $3,673,124, and losses in CY 2008
of $274,255. In CY 2009, Koenigsegg reported a profit of $178,281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ All dollar amounts cited are based on an exchange rate of
6.8 krona to the U.S. dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since it was granted the exemption from advanced air bags in 2007,
Koenigsegg stated that worldwide economic conditions required a re-
evaluation of its business and sales projections. Koenigsegg's earlier
plan to manufacture as many as 50 vehicles per year has been adjusted
to approximately 20 vehicles per year. Recently, Koenigsegg has
initiated a ``Custom Vision'' program that allows customers a measure
of customization (within vehicle specification boundaries) of their
vehicles. This initiative has increased the costs of building the
vehicles and resulted in an increase in the retail sales price of each
vehicle.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Koenigsegg did not specify the amount of the increase in
price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional source of income, Koenigsegg has been able to sell
its engineering services to third parties and cites the ``Quant concept
car'' \12\ as one project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In footnote 1 in its petition, Koenigsegg describes the
``Quant concept car'' as follows: ``The Quant project was a
commission from NLG, a Swiss high tech company specializing in the
development of new patented solar cell and rechargeable battery
technologies, who wanted a high profile concept car to showcase
their technologies. Koenigsegg was responsible for the vehicle
concept, styling and showcar manufacturing and painting, show ready
* * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to forecasts presented in its petition, Koenigsegg
anticipates the following number of CCX vehicles would be imported into
the United States, if its requested renewal of exemption were to be
granted: 10 CCXs in CY 2010; 12 CCXs in CY 2011, and 17 CCXs in CY
2012.
    Requested Exemptions. Koenigsegg stated that it intends to certify
the CCX as complying with the rigid barrier belted test requirement
using the 50th percentile adult male test dummy set forth in S14.5.1 of
FMVSS No. 208. The petitioner stated that it previously determined the
CCX's compliance with rigid barrier unbelted test requirements using
the 50th percentile adult male test dummy through the S13 sled test
using a generic pulse rather than a full vehicle test. Koenigsegg
stated that it, therefore, cannot at present say with certainty that
the CCX will comply with the unbelted test requirement under S14.5.2,
which is a 20-25 mph rigid barrier test. As for the CCX's compliance
with the other advanced air bag requirements, Koenigsegg stated that it
does not know whether the CCX will be compliant because to date it has
not had the financial ability to conduct the necessary testing. As
such, Koenigsegg is requesting an exemption for the CCX from the rigid
barrier unbelted test requirement with the 50th percentile adult male
test dummy (S14.5.2), the rigid barrier test requirement using the 5th
percentile adult female test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15), the
offset deformable barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile
adult female test dummy (S17), the requirements to provide protection
for infants and children (S19, S21, and S23) and the requirement using
an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver
position (S25).
    Koenigsegg's Statement of Economic Hardship--Publicly available
information and financial documents submitted to NHTSA by the
petitioner indicate that sales of the CCX will result in greater
financial losses unless Koenigsegg obtains renewal of the temporary
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements.
    Koenigsegg states that the U.S. accounts for approximately 35 to 40
percent of the worldwide market for the CCX. Koenigsegg states that for
CY 2006 through 2008, its financial statements have shown losses of
over $7.7 million dollars.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ All dollar amounts cited are based on an exchange rate of
6.8 krona to the U.S. dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Koenigsegg states that if the renewal of the temporary exemption
from advanced air bag requirements is not granted, there will be losses
over CYs 2009-2011 of more than $3.3 million.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Koenigsegg states it will make a profit of $178,281 in CY
2009 (the last year of the temporary exemption from advanced air bag
and FMVSS No. 108 requirements), and without a renewal of the
temporary exemption from advanced air bag requirements, forecasts
that it will incur a loss of $2,607,200 in CY 2010, and that it will
incur a loss of $704,785 in CY 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With a renewal of the temporary exemption from advanced air bag
requirements, Koenigsegg forecasts profits of $3.6 million for CYs 2010
through 2012.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ With a renewal of the temporary exemption from advanced air
bag requirements, Koenigsegg forecasts that it will make a profit of
$6,636 (assuming U.S. sales of 10 CCX vehicles) in CY 2010, make a
profit of $1,131,449 (assuming U.S. sales of 12 CCX vehicles) in CY
2011, and will make a profit of $2,493,698 (assuming U.S. sales of
17 CCX vehicles) in CY 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Koenigsegg states that without the renewal of the temporary
exemption, the CCX cannot be sold in the U.S. from CY 2010 through
2012, and it needs the income from U.S. sales until the next version of
the CCX is produced in 2013 with advanced air bags. Koenigsegg asserts
that the financial impact of a denial of renewal of the temporary
exemption would be more than lost sales. Koenigsegg's view is that with
no U.S. sales for a three year period, it will ``surrender'' its small,
but, in Koenigsegg's view, ``significant'' market share to competitors,
and expressed concern that it will not be able to regain that lost
market share. Furthermore, because the CYs 2010 through 2012 U.S. sales
of the CCX are expected to make up half of worldwide sales of the CCX,
Koenigsegg stated it is ``likely'' that it would no longer be viable
for Koenigsegg to continue to produce the CCX for any market.

    Koenigsegg's Statement of Good Faith Efforts to Comply With
Advanced Air Bag Requirements--Koenigsegg provided the following
information in support of its statement that it has made the requisite
good faith efforts to meet advanced air bag requirements. In its
initial petition for temporary exemption from advanced air bag
requirements, Koenigsegg anticipated ``that two years would be needed
to install an advanced air bag system on the CCX.'' \16\ At that time,
Koenigsegg planned to produce a second generation of the CCX model by
late 2009, which would be certified as complying with all applicable
U.S. standards, including those for advanced air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 72 FR 17608, at 17611, April 9, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Koenigsegg is facing unanticipated financial challenges.
Since it was granted the temporary exemption from advanced air bag
requirements in April 2007, Koenigsegg cited ``unexpected events'' that
have necessitated the product cycle of the CCX to be extended from
December 2009 to December 2012. The introduction of the successor
vehicle to the CCX has been delayed for three years because Koenigsegg
has used available funds to comply with the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) requirements for the U.S. market. The world economic
situation has hindered Koenigsegg's search for outside financing to
develop the new model. Koenigsegg stated that: ``The limited funds
available are felt to be better utilized on improving the CCX with
regards to 35 mph occupant protection.''
    Koenigsegg stated that expenditures also went to meeting U.S. and
European carbon dioxide emissions requirements and FMVSS No. 108
headlamp requirements.
    In 2009, when it realized the successor vehicle to the CCX was
going to be delayed, Koenigsegg once again looked into the possibility
of fitting advanced air bags into the current CCX. Koenigsegg had hoped
that technological and supplier availability had changed since it made
its last review in 2005. After its 2009 review, Koenigsegg concluded
that advanced air bags for the current CCX were not available.
    Nevertheless, there has been some progress in developing advanced
air bags for the CCX. Koenigsegg states that it has undertaken
significant work and through many iterations of crash analysis
simulation, now understands the extent of redesign. Koenigsegg states
that complete compliance with FMVSS No. 208 is hindered by the number
of crash test vehicles needed to validate all the test cases.
Koenigsegg states that in adopting the new development plan, it would
take three vehicles and 10 full front end assemblies, at a cost to
Koenigsegg of $4.5 million. Koenigsegg states that at present, this
amount of money is neither financially or commercially feasible.
    Koenigsegg explained how it has focused on developing advanced air
bags for the CCX successor vehicle. Koenigsegg has started working with
a consortium consisting of IDIADA, Bosch, and Key Safety Systems, to
develop a ``low risk'' advanced air bag development program that would
be feasible for a small volume manufacturer to complete. This effort is
primarily based on a drastic reduction in the number of test vehicles,
and is based on continued rebuild and repair of frontal structures that
are bolted on to the vehicle. Koenigsegg stated that this was possible
because of the ``advanced monococque chassis concept'' upon which the
CCX successor will be based. Koenigsegg further stated that the
successor to the CCX will comply with the FMVSS No. 214 Side Impact
Protection pole test criteria.
    Koenigsegg described how the work initiated for the advanced air
bag program will be shared: Koenigsegg will take overall vehicle
engineering responsibility; IDIADA will perform all CAE (computer aided
engineering) and manage the crash test program; Bosch will be
responsible for the air bag ECU (electronic control unit) hardware/
software development; and Key Safety Systems (KSS) will be responsible
for the DAB (driver side air bag)/PAB (passenger side air bag) and
restraint system hardware adaptation and calibration, including all
sled tests.
    Koenigsegg's plan is to spend over $1.3 million in outside
development costs plus $2.8 million for the cost of development
vehicles. Because of the worldwide economic situation, which has
affected automotive sales, Koenigsegg states that it needs more time to
be able to raise the capital to meet the advanced air bag development
expenditures.
    Koenigsegg Argues an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest. The
petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding that the
requested renewal of an exemption from advanced air bag requirements
would be consistent with the public interest. Specifically, Koenigsegg
argued that the vehicle would be equipped with a fully-compliant
standard U.S. air bag system. Other than the lack of an advanced air
bag, Koenigsegg emphasized that the CCX will comply with applicable
FMVSSs and with Part 581, Bumper Standard.
    As additional bases for showing that its requested renewal of an
exemption would be in the public interest, Koenigsegg offered the
following. The company asserted that there is consumer demand in the
U.S. for the CCX, and granting this application will allow the demand
to be met, thereby expanding consumer choice. The company also
suggested another reason why granting the renewal of the exemption
would not be expected to have a significant impact on safety,
specifically because the vehicle is unlikely to be used extensively by
owners, due to its ``sporty (second car) nature.'' Finally, Koenigsegg
indicated that the CCX incorporates advanced engineering and certain
advanced safety features that are not required by the FMVSSs, including
racing brakes with anti-lock capability and traction control. In
addition, the company argued that the CCX has enhanced fuel efficiency
due to its highly aerodynamic design.

IV. Petition of Morgan

    Background--Founded in 1909, Morgan is a small, privately-owned
vehicle manufacturer producing approximately 650 specialty sports cars
per year.\17\ Morgan manufactures several models, but at present, only
sells the Aero 8 in the U.S. Morgan intended to produce a vehicle line
specific to the U.S. market, with Ford supplying the engine and
transmission. However, for technical reasons, the project did not come
to fruition, and Morgan temporarily stopped selling vehicles in the
U.S. in 2004. In May 2005, Morgan obtained a temporary exemption from
this agency's bumper standard and began selling the Aero 8 in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship
exemption if its total motor vehicle production in its most recent
year of production does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the
NHTSA Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39386), NHTSA published a notice of receipt
of five applications for temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Among these petitions was one from
Morgan, for the Aero 8, which is discussed at pages 39390-39391.
Morgan's petition is included in the docket for that notice, i.e.,
Docket NHTSA-2006-25324.
    We granted Morgan's petition for temporary exemption in a Federal
Register notice of September 7, 2006 (71 FR 52851). The discussion of
Morgan's grant is on pages 52862 though 52865. The grant of temporary
exemption is for the Morgan Aero 8 ``From S15.2, S17,

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 571.208.'' The exemption was granted
for the period from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2009.
    In a petition dated June 11, 2009, Morgan asked for a renewal of
the temporary exemption for a two year period, from September 1, 2009
to August 31, 2011. NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that
exemptions from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are to be
granted on a ``temporary basis.'' \18\ However, the statute also
expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on reapplication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morgan's petition would apply to the Aero 8 and the Aero Super
Sport, an interim vehicle also based on the Aero platform. The Aero
Super Sport will be available on an interim basis until a successor
vehicle (code named the AP8), is complete and ready for sale.
    Morgan's Statement of Economic Hardship--In its petition for
temporary exemption for the Aero 8 for September 1, 2006 through August
31, 2009, Morgan estimated that U.S. sales of the Aero 8 would be
several hundred vehicles a year. In the June 11, 2009 petition, Morgan
reports that it has sold 19 Aero 8s in the U.S. from September 2006 to
the present. The 19 vehicles represent ``less than 3% of what had been
expected.''
    Morgan stated it has been focusing over the last two years on the
Aero model range successor, (code named the AP8) which will be a
completely new design. However, since the original petition was granted
in 2006, it was decided to extend the availability of the present Aero
model from September 2009 to the fall of 2011, in large part due to
world economic conditions.
    Because, over the past few years, Morgan did not sell as many
vehicles in the U.S. as it had hoped, and because of other economic
considerations, Morgan decided to delay development of the new AP8. In
order to ``improve available funds,'' Morgan decided to concentrate on
the Aero Super Sport, an interim project based on the Aero platform,
which Morgan hopes will be able to generate enough revenue so that
Morgan can continue to develop the AP8. The Aero Super Sport was slated
to be available in the U.S. in January 2010.
    Morgan seeks an extension of the temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements for the Aero Super Sport. Morgan intends
to use the exemption to cover a ``limited production run of 50 U.S.
Aero Super Sport cars.'' Morgan states the Aero Super Sport will be the
last model that is based on the Aero chassis and that uses the standard
air bag system.
    Morgan states that the Aero ``must'' come to an end in 2011 because
the production of the steering wheel has ended, and no further stock,
other than that already owned by Morgan, is available. Morgan stated
that this essentially forced end to production is important because
``it essentially precludes further requests by Morgan to NHTSA to
prolong the Aero platform in the U.S.''
    Morgan estimates that, assuming 50 Aero Super Sports are sold in
the U.S., the total number of exempted vehicles that Morgan
manufactures and sells in the U.S. will be 69 (50 Aero Super Sports
plus the 19 Aero 8s already sold). If Morgan can sell 69 vehicles, that
will be 656 fewer vehicles than the projected sales in Morgan's first
petition for temporary exemption in 2005.
    Morgan's Statement of Good Faith Efforts to Comply--In its previous
submission, Morgan stated that it has been working with the air bag
supplier Siemens to develop an advanced air bag system for the Aero 8.
However, a lack of funds and technical problems precluded the
implementation of an advanced air bag system for the Aero 8. It said
that the minimum time needed to develop an advanced air bag system
(provided that there is a source of revenue) is two years. Specific
technical challenges include the following. Morgan does not have access
to the necessary sensor technology to pursue the ``full suppression''
passenger air bag option. Due to the design of the Aero 8 platform
dashboard, an entirely new interior solution and design must be
developed. Chassis modifications are anticipated due to the originally
stiff chassis design.
    In its February 2006 petition, Morgan stated that for vehicles to
be built between September 2006-September 2009, the Aero 8 vehicles
will have (and in fact, did have) standard air bags. Back then, Morgan
stated its belief that when its advanced air bag system is ready in
2009, the air bag system will simultaneously be installed in both the
Aero and other models.
    Morgan's Statement of Public Interest--In its original petition
concerning the Aero, Morgan put forth several arguments supporting its
view that the requested exemption is consistent with the public
interest. According to Morgan, if the exemption was denied and Morgan
stops U.S. sales, Morgan's U.S. dealers would unavoidably have numerous
lay-offs, resulting in U.S. unemployment. Denial of an exemption would
reduce consumer choice in the specialty sports car market sector in
which Morgan cars compete. That company argued that the Morgan vehicles
will not be used extensively by owners, and are unlikely to carry small
children. Finally, according to Morgan, granting an exemption would
assure the continued availability of proper parts and service support
for existing Morgan owners. Without an exemption, Morgan would be
forced from the U.S. market, and Morgan dealers would find it difficult
to support existing customers.
    In its petition asking for a renewal of the temporary exemption
from FMVSS No. 208, Morgan reiterated these points.

V. Public Comment Period

    We are providing a 30-day comment period on Koenigsegg's and
Morgan's petitions for an extension of a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirement of FMVSS No. 208. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action addressing each application in the Federal Register.

VI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to the Docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging into http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50. and 501.8.

    Issued on: April 5, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-8468 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70031-70032]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-27-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Highlands Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Disposition of
Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for
Confidential Treatment, Expedited Consideration and Waivers of Colorado
Highlands Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5352.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2848-002; ER11-1939-004; ER11-2754-004; ER12-
999-002; ER12-1002-002; ER12-1005-002; ER12-1006-002; ER12-1007-003.
    Applicants: AP Holdings, LLC, AP Gas & Electric (IL), LLC, AP Gas &
Electric (PA), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (TX), LLC, AP Gas & Electric
(MD), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (NJ), LLC, AP Gas & Electric (OH), LLC, AP
Gas & Electric (NY), LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 28, 2013 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Southwest Region of AP Holdings Subsidiaries.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3050-001.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Corp.
    Description: Notice of change in status of FirstEnergy Companies.
    Filed Date: 11/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20131108-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1292-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 764 Compliance (Scheduling) to be effective
11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5298.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2485-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing--Corrected Tariff Record of Previous
filing of 093013 to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-356-000.
    Applicants: Conservation Services Group Inc.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver and Request for Expedited
Action Conservation Services Group Inc. under.
    Filed Date: 11/8/13.
    Accession Number: 20131108-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-377-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective
11/12/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5269.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-378-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y3-045 & Y3-052; Original Service
Agreement No. 3667 to be effective 10/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5291.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-379-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y3-044/Y3-050/Y3-053; Original SA No.
3668 to be effective 10/10/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5299.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-380-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 11-12-13 Module E Cancellation to be effective 1/11/
2014.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5300.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-381-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing--Docket No. RM10-
11 to be effective 1/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5301.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-382-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective
11/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5302.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-383-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective
11/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-384-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective
11/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-385-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 764 Compliance Filing to be effective
1/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/12/13.
    Accession Number: 20131112-5332.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-386-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: RS 66, Toledo Bend PSA Amendment to be effective 12/
19/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-387-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Clarification of Cat 2 Status in NW Region and Cat 1
Status in All Other Regions to be effective 11/27/2013.

    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-388-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Clarification of Cat 2 Status in NW Region and Cat 1
Status in All Other Regions to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-389-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Wyoming, LLC.
    Description: Clarification of Cat 2 Status in NW Region and Cat 1
Status in All Other Regions to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-390-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP.
    Description: Clarification of Cat 2 Status in NW Region and Cat 1
Status in All Other Regions to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-391-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2548R4 KMEA and Westar Energy Meter Agent Agreement to
be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 13, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28014 Filed 11-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42342-42346]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1033; FRL-9177-7]

 Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Colorado regarding its Regulation 1. Regulation 1 provides certain
emission controls for opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide and sulfur
dioxide. The revision involves the deletion of obsolete, the adoption
of new, and the clarification of ambiguous provisions within Regulation
1. The intended effect of this proposed action is to make federally
enforceable the revised portions of Colorado's Regulation 1 that EPA is
proposing to approve and to disapprove portions of the regulation that
EPA deems are not consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1033, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-1033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Air Program, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of State's Submittal
V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VI. Proposed Action

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (v) The words Provision or Regulation refer to Colorado's
Regulation 1.
    (vi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide, HC mean
or refer to hydrocarbons and CO mean or refer to Carbon Monoxide.
    (vii) The initials RACT mean or refer to Reasonably Available
Control Technology.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the purpose of this action?

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado
on August 16, 2001 and submitted to EPA on July 31, 2002. The revisions
involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption of new, and clarification of
ambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, and
particulate, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from
sources. After our review of these revisions, we believe that some of
the revisions are consistent with the Act and should be approved while
some of the revisions are not and should be disapproved.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the
Addresses section of this document.

III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal

    On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a formal revision
to its SIP. The July 31, 2002 revision deleted obsolete provisions in
Sections II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 \1\ regarding, respectively, alfalfa
dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, and the static firing of
Pershing missiles. The provisions were deleted from the regulation
because these sources no longer exist in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references in this notice to particular section numbers
are to the designated sections within Regulation 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado added language to its open burning provisions (Sections
II.C.2.d and C.3) to clarify that the open burning of animal parts and
carcasses are not exempt from permit requirements. However, a special
allowance to conduct open burning activities without a permit is
provided where the State Agricultural Commission declares a public
health emergency or a contagious or infectious outbreak of disease that
imperils livestock is evident. Such activities require a telephone
notice to State and local health departments prior to conducting such
open burning activities. All necessary safeguards must be used to
minimize impacts on public health or welfare.
    The State revised the method in Section III.A.1.d for calculating
emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducting to a common stack.
Emissions are to be calculated on a pound per million British thermal
unit (lbs/mmBtu) input and must be based on a weighted average of the
individual allowable limits for each unit.
    The State added clarifying language in several provisions of
Regulation 1 stating that alternative performance test methods may be
used with approval from the State. It also specified that ASTM or
equivalent methods approved by the State may be used for fuel sampling
from sources subject to Regulation 1.
    In sections VI A.3.e. and VI.B.4.g. regarding SO2
emissions, the State changed the overall emission limit for petroleum
and oil shale refineries from 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per
day to 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. The State also
added new language that modifies the method for calculating compliance
with emission limits for petroleum refining and cement manufacturing.
The State deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources of
SO2 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best
available control technology.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of State's Submittal

    We have evaluated Colorado's July 31, 2002 submittal regarding
revisions to the State's Regulation 1. We propose to approve some of
the revisions but also propose to disapprove other revisions.

Proposed Approvals

    We propose approval of the deletion of emission limits in Sections
II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 of Regulation 1 for alfalfa dehydrating plant drum
dryers, wigwam burners, and Pershing missiles because these sources no
longer exist in the State and the emission limits have effectively
become obsolete. For the same reasons, we propose to approve the
revision to Section III.C.2 regarding the deletion of process weight
emission standards for alfalfa drum dryers.
    We also propose to approve clarifying language in Sections II.C.2.d
and II.C.3 regarding the incineration of animal parts to prevent the
outbreak of disease during a public health emergency. The clarification
provides for the prompt notification of both State and local health
officials and the use of all

necessary safeguards to minimize the impact of emissions from the
burning on public health and welfare.
    Finally, we propose to approve the State's revision to the method
of computing compliance with emission limits for cement manufacturing
and petroleum refining (Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f., VI.B.4.e, and
VI.B.4.g(ii)). The revised method more accurately reflects the daily
processed-based SO2 emissions limits by using actual hours
of operations as an averaging time when the facility does not operate
for an entire 24-hour period. The State also revised the method in
Section III.A.1.d for calculating particulate matter emission rates for
two or more fuel burning units connected to a common opening.
Previously, the method summed the allowable emissions from the fuel
burning units; the revised method uses a weighted average of the
individual allowable limits. The revised method more accurately ensures
compliance with emission limits, and we, therefore, propose to approve
it.
    There are several provisions within Regulation 1 that we propose to
disapprove. Our reasons are described below. As described separately
below, we also propose to partially approve and partially disapprove
specific portions of Section V regarding electric arc furnace shops at
iron and steel operations.

Director's Discretion

    EPA reviewed the July 31, 2002 Regulation 1 SIP revision submittal
and found several instances throughout the sections within Regulation 1
where we believe ``director's discretion'' provisions provide the State
with the ability to modify requirements for stationary sources. Such
provisions are inconsistent with sections 110(a) and 110(i) of the CAA
which provide for the review and approval of SIP revisions by the
Administrator. Section 110(i) specifically prohibits States, except in
certain limited circumstances, from taking any action to modify any
requirement of a SIP with respect to any stationary source, except
through a SIP revision.
    For this submittal, we propose to disapprove the revised sections
within Regulation 1 that contain director's discretion provisions. The
revised sections are as follows:
Sections III.A.2 and III.C.3. Performance Tests
    EPA proposes to disapprove the revisions to these sections, which
specify particulate matter performance tests for fuel burning equipment
(III.A.2) and manufacturing processes (III.A.C). Previously, the
sections specified certain EPA-approved methods for performance tests.
The revisions add the phrase `` * * * or other credible method approved
by the Division to determine compliance with this subsection of this
regulation.'' EPA believes these are instances of director's discretion
that are inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA, because they
allow the State to modify stationary source requirements of the SIP
without a SIP revision and without corresponding requirements such as
public notice and comment and EPA approval.
Section VI.C. Fuel Sampling
    EPA proposes to disapprove the revision to this section. The
revision allows for the use equivalent test methods approved by the
Division in fuel sampling plans. EPA believes that this is an instance
of director's discretion that is inconsistent with section 110(i) of
the CAA, because it allows the State to modify stationary source
requirements of the SIP without a SIP revision and without
corresponding requirements such as public notice and comment and EPA
approval.
Section VI.F. Alternative Compliance Procedures
    The State added Section VI.F to Regulation 1. This section provides
for alternative compliance procedures to those in Section VI.
Specifically, it provides for alternative test methods, methods of
control, compliance periods, emission limits, and monitoring schedules.
Section VI.F.3 states that Colorado shall obtain concurrence from EPA
prior to approving an alternative test method. However, EPA believes
that Section VI.F is inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA, as it
allows the State to modify stationary source requirements without a SIP
revision and without corresponding public notice and comment.
Therefore, we propose to disapprove Sections III.A.2, III.C.3, VI.C,
and VI.F.
    The State may retain some flexibility through the authorities under
40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and the policy in EPA's White Paper No. 2.\2\
These authorities allow adoption of enabling language in a SIP to
provide for use of alternative, equally stringent requirements in the
Title V permitting process so that source specific SIP revisions are
not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under regulations in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and policy
expressed in EPA's March 5, 1996 Guidance Memorandum, ``White Paper
Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the Part 70 Operating
Permits Program'' by Lydia N. Wegman, a State may adopt enabling
language in the SIP that allows the State to apply equivalent or
more stringent limits, monitoring techniques, or recordkeeping and
reporting requirements through the Title V permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limits

    Colorado revised Section VI (pertaining to sulfur dioxide emission
regulations) by modifying emission limits for petroleum refineries
(Section VI.B.4.e) and shale oil refineries (Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The
existing SIP approved rules for these sources limit SO2
emissions to 0.3 pounds per barrel of oil processed per day. The State
has revised the daily limit to 0.7 pounds per barrel of oil processed
per day. Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that we cannot approve a
revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. There has been no
demonstration that the proposed relaxation of the SO2
emission limits satisfies the requirements of Section 110(l). We
believe these proposed changes pose a problem under Section 110(l)
because they may result in an increase in SO2 emissions
within the State. The relaxation of SO2 emission limits may
also have an impact on the attainment status for other pollutants.
Sulfur dioxide is a known precursor to the formation of particulate
matter. As a result, the proposed changes may interfere with attainment
of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements of the CAA. We therefore
propose to disapprove the relaxation of the SO2 emission
limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii).
    Colorado later revised Section VI pertaining to sulfur dioxide
emission regulations with regard to emission limits for petroleum
(Section VI.B.4.e) and refining oil produced from shale (Section
VI.B.4.g(ii)). The State revised the daily limit back to 0.3 pounds per
barrel of oil processed per day. The State submitted this revision to
Regulation 1 via the Governor's designee's letter dated August 8, 2006.
We are not acting on the August 8, 2006 submittal with today's action
but will act on the submittal in a separate action.
    In the July 31, 2002 submittal we propose to act on, the State also
deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources of
SO2 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best
available control technology. This deletion is a relaxation of the
SIP's requirements. As we stated before, Section 110(l) of the CAA
provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and

reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. There has been no demonstration that the proposed deletion will
satisfy the requirements of Section 110(l). We believe the deletion of
Section VI.B.5 poses a problem under Section 110(l) because it may
result in an increase in SO2 emissions within the State and
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements
of the CAA. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the deletion of Section
VI.B.5.

Emission Limits for Existing Iron and Steel Operations

    Colorado's Regulation 1 Section V provides for specific opacity and
emission limits for gas-cleaning devices associated with electric arc
furnace shops. Other sources of particulate emissions at iron and steel
plants must comply with emission limits set forth in the Smoke and
Opacity section of Regulation 1 (Section II). In the revision submitted
July 31, 2002, the State deleted language from Section V regarding
emission limits for existing iron and steel plant operations, because
operations other than electric arc furnaces at the single existing iron
and steel plant within the State have ceased, rendering the limits
obsolete. EPA proposes to approve the submitted provisions with the
following exception.
    For the July 31, 2002 submittal, the State added in Section V.A.2 a
director's discretion clause regarding the sampling methodology the
source may use to determine that the mass emission rate does not exceed
0.00520 grains per dry standard cubic foot. As revised by the State,
the source may use a credible method approved by the State. As
discussed earlier in this proposal, this director's discretion
provision provides the State with the ability to modify stationary
source requirements in the SIP without going through the SIP revision
process and without corresponding public notice and comment and EPA
approval. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the phrase ``or by other
credible method approved by the Division.''

Locomotive Opacity Limits

    Although Colorado did not revise Section II.B, which sets opacity
limits for locomotives, EPA is taking this opportunity to note that the
provisions in Section II.B appear to be preempted. Under section
209(e)(1)(B) of the CAA, all state standards or other requirements
relating to the control of emissions from new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives are expressly preempted. Under section
209(e)(2), state standards or other requirements relating to the
control of emissions from all other locomotives or locomotive engines
are impliedly preempted, with the following exception. EPA can
authorize California to adopt such standards under certain
circumstances; if EPA does so, other states may adopt identical
standards.
    Section II.B of Colorado's SIP imposes opacity limits on
locomotives. These limits would appear to be a standard relating to
control of emissions. Therefore, under section 209(e)(1)(B), the
standards would be preempted as they relate to new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives, and, as EPA has not authorized California
to adopt opacity limits for other locomotives or locomotive engines,
the Colorado standards would appear to be preempted as they apply to
such sources.
    EPA's concern regarding Colorado's opacity limits should not be
interpreted to mean that Colorado would be prohibited by the Clean Air
Act from regulating the use and operation of locomotives and locomotive
engines, although any such regulation would need to be evaluated. As
described in 40 CFR Part 89, Appendix A to Subpart A:
    ``EPA believes that States are not precluded under section 209 from
regulating the use and operation of non-road engines, such as
regulations on hours of usage, daily mass emission limits, or sulfur
limits on fuel; nor are permits regulating such operations precluded,
once the engine is no longer new.''

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision
cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
or any other applicable requirement of the Act. We believe that those
portions of the revision to Colorado's Regulation 1 that we propose to
approve satisfy section 110(l), because those portions do not relax
existing SIP requirements. Instead, the portions of the July 31, 2002
submittal EPA proposes to approve either increase stringency of
existing requirements, clarify those requirements, or remove obsolete
requirements. Therefore, section 110(l) is satisfied.

VI. Proposed Action

    For the reasons expressed above, we are proposing to approve
revisions to the following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Sections
II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9 regarding the deletion of emission limits
for sources that no longer exist in the State; (2) Sections II.C.2.d.
and II.C.3 regarding the burning of diseased animal carcasses to
prevent a public health emergency; (3) Section III.A.1.d involving the
State's method for calculating emissions from multiple fuel burning
units ducted to a common stack; (4) Section III.C.2 regarding the
deletion of process weight emission standards for alfalfa drum dryers;
(5) Section V regarding emission standards for electric arc furnaces,
except for the director's discretion provision provided for in Section
V; (6) Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g(ii)
regarding the methods used for the averaging of emissions over a 24
hour period.
    For reasons expressed above, we propose to disapprove revisions to
the following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Section III.A.2. and
Section III.C.3 involving director's discretion regarding the method
for conducting performance tests; (2) the director's discretion
provision in Section V regarding the method used to determine
compliance with electric arc furnaces' emission standard; (3) Sections
VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) regarding changes in the SO2
emission limits for petroleum and oil shale refining; (4) VI.B.5
regarding SO2 emission limits for new sources not falling in
specified source categories; and (5) Sections VI.C. and VI.F. regarding
the use of director's discretion for alternative methods to show
compliance with fuel sampling plans and alternative compliance
procedures respectively.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-17790 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28117-28119]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12659]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86087; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Delay Implementation of the MIDP Routing Option

June 11, 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 June 3, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay implementation of the MIDP routing
option until the third quarter of 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 Exchange is proposing to delay implementation of the MIDP
routing option until the third quarter of 2019.

MIDP is a new order routing option under Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A),
which will allow members to seek midpoint liquidity on Nasdaq and other
markets on the Nasdaq system routing table. On May 20, 2019, the
Commission approved MIDP, noting that the Exchange planned to implement
the new routing option in the second quarter of 2019 and would provide
at least 30 days notice.\3\ The Exchange is proposing to delay
implementation of MIDP until the third quarter of 2019. Currently, the
Exchange is reducing the number of changes to the System in preparation
for an upcoming ``quadruple witching'' day \4\ and the Russell
Rebalance, two significant market events occurring in June 2019.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it would be in the best
interest of the markets if MIDP was implemented after these events, in
the third quarter 2019. As originally proposed by the Exchange, it will
provide at least 30 days notice to market participants of the
implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85892 (May 20,
2019), 84 FR 24191 (May 24, 2019) (SR-NASDAQ-2019-004).
    \4\ A ``quadruple witching'' day occurs when stock options,
index options, index futures, and single stock futures all expire on
the same day. This will occur next on June 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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,
by allowing the Exchange to implement the approved changes after two
significant market events. The Exchange believes that the short delay
will allow the Exchange to limit the number of changes implemented to
its systems prior to these events, reducing any risk to the operation
of the system by implementation of changes thereto, in turn, protecting
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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. The brief delay described
herein is proposed solely in the interest of protecting the markets and
investors, and is not being proposed for any competitive reasons.
Accordingly, the delay does not implicate competition whatsoever.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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 \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the Exchange may delay implementation of MIDP and provide public notice
thereof at the earliest possible time. The Exchange states that waiver
would thereby avoid any market participant confusion that may be caused
by the Exchange not implementing the proposal in the second quarter of
2019. For this reason, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposal as operative upon
filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-050 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-2019-050. 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-2019-050 and should be submitted on or before July 8, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12659 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P