[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18964-18966]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0326; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl
Model P2006T Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During Landing Gear retraction/extension ground checks performed
on the P2006T, a loose Seeger ring was found on the nose landing
gear hydraulic actuator cap.
    The manufacturer has identified the root cause of this
discrepancy in a design deficiency of the hydraulic actuator caps.
    This condition, if not corrected, could determine uncommanded
and improper extension of the nose or main landing gear.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise--
81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax: +39 0823
622899; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.tecnam.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0326;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-006-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2011-0042, dated March 11, 2011 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During Landing Gear retraction/extension ground checks performed
on the P2006T, a loose Seeger ring was found on the nose landing
gear hydraulic actuator cap.
    The manufacturer has identified the root cause of this
discrepancy in a design deficiency of the hydraulic actuator caps.
    This condition, if not corrected, could determine uncommanded
and improper extension of the nose or main landing gear. To prevent
this condition, this AD requires modifying each nose and main
landing gear hydraulic actuator by installing security rings.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam has issued Service Bulletin No. SB
036-CS, 1st Edition, Rev 1, dated December 15, 2010. The actions
described in this

service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 1 product of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $80 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $250, or $250 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl: Docket No. FAA-2011-0326;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-006-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl
P2006T airplanes, serial numbers 01 through 046, 047/US, and 049,
certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During Landing Gear retraction/extension ground checks performed
on the P2006T, a loose Seeger ring was found on the nose landing
gear hydraulic actuator cap.
    The manufacturer has identified the root cause of this
discrepancy in a design deficiency of the hydraulic actuator caps.
    This condition, if not corrected, could determine uncommanded
and improper extension of the nose or main landing gear. To prevent
this condition, this AD requires modifying each nose and main
landing gear hydraulic actuator by installing security rings.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 50 hours time-in-service after
the effective date of this AD or within 60 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify each nose and main
landing gear hydraulic actuator in accordance with Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 036-CS, 1st Edition, Rev
1, dated December 15, 2010.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for

failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection
of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and
suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2011-0042, dated March 11, 2011; and Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam
Service Bulletin No. SB 036-CS, 1st Edition, Rev 1, dated December
15, 2010, for related information. For service information related
to this AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Airworthiness
Office, Via Maiorise--81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823
620134; fax: +39 0823 622899; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.tecnam.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 29, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-8070 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35839-35845]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14388]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92300; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-053]

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

June 30, 2021.
    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 22, 2021, 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 credits
and charges at Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, 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
schedule of credits and charges, at Equity 7, Section 118(a).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Add a new credit of $0.0028
per share executed for members that add at least a certain threshold
volume of liquidity in securities in Tape B; (2) add a new credit of
$0.0030 per share executed for members that add and remove liquidity,
including adding at least a certain threshold volume of liquidity in
securities in midpoint orders or Midpoint Extended Life Orders (``M-
ELOs'') \3\ for securities in any Tape; (3) raise the qualifying
threshold for an existing credit of $0.00305 per share executed for
members that add and remove liquidity, including a certain volume of
liquidity in midpoint orders or M-ELOs in securities in any Tape; (4)
add new $0.0026 and $0.0027 per share executed credits for members that
provide liquidity, grow their liquidity adding activity relative to a
benchmark month, and achieve certain ratios of NBBO liquidity \4\ to
displayed liquidity provided; (5) add two new supplemental credits for
certain midpoint orders of $0.0001 or $0.0002 per share executed for
members that provide at least certain thresholds of midpoint liquidity
and grow their midpoint adding liquidity relative to a benchmark month;
and (6) amend the applicability of two existing charges for members
with orders that execute upon utilizing the ``RTFY'' routing option.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 4, Rule 4702(b)(14), a ``Midpoint
Extended Life Order'' is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order
Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that
will not be eligible to execute until a minimum period of 10
milliseconds has passed after acceptance of the Order by the System.
    \4\ As defined in Equity 7, Section 114(g), ``NBBO liquidity
provided'' means liquidity provided from orders (other than
Designated Retail Orders, as that term is defined in Equity 7,
Section 118), that establish the NBBO, and display a quantity of at
least one round lot at the time of execution.
    \5\ Pursuant to Equity 4, Section 4758(a)(1)(A)(v)(b), ``RTFY''
is a routing option available for an order that qualifies as a
Designated Retail Order under which orders check the System for
available shares only if so instructed by the entering firm and are
thereafter routed to destinations on the System routing table. If
shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted to the
Nasdaq Book. Once on the Nasdaq Book, should the order subsequently
be locked or crossed by another market center, the Nasdaq System
will not route the order to the locking or crossing market center.
RTFY is designed to allow orders to participate in the opening,
reopening and closing process of the primary listing market for a
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Credit for Adding Liquidity in Tape B Securities
    The Exchange proposes to add a new credit of $0.0028 per share
executed to a member with shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent 0.45% or more of Consolidated Volume \6\ during the month,
which includes shares of liquidity provided with respect to securities
that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE (``Tape B
Securities'') that represent 0.10% or more of Consolidated Volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Equity 7, Section 118(a) defines ``Consolidated Volume'' to
mean 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it presently offers three similarly
structured credits, ranging from $0.0029 to $0.0030 per share executed,
to members with orders that add liquidity to the Exchange representing
more than certain threshold percentages of Consolidated Volumes (0.625%
to 1.25%), including shares of liquidity provided with respect to
securities in Tape B that represent at least certain threshold
percentages of Consolidated Volume (0.15% to 0.40%).
    The proposal will add to this series of credits a new lower credit
for members that add corresponding lower threshold volumes of liquidity
to the Exchange, and lower threshold volumes in securities in Tape B.
In doing so, the Exchange intends to expand opportunities for
participants to receive a credit if they add significant liquidity to
the Exchange, including significant liquidity in Tape B. For those
members that engage in significant liquidity adding activity on the
Exchange, but do not have sufficient activity to qualify for the
existing credits, the new credit may be more readily attainable. If so,
then such members may seek to qualify for the new credit by increasing
their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange. To the extent that
they do so, the quality of the market will improve, to the benefit of
all participants.
New and Amended Credits for Adding and Removing Liquidity and Executing
Midpoint and M-ELO Orders
    The Exchange proposes to add a new credit of $0.0030 per share
executed to a member: (i) With shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent 0.875% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month; (ii)
that executes 0.25% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month
through providing midpoint orders and through MELO; and (iii) that
removes at least 1.35% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
    The proposed new credit will be situated between two similarly-
structured credits that the Exchange presently provides to its members:
(1) A $0.00295 per share executed credit to a member that adds
liquidity representing 0.70% or more of Consolidated Volume during the
month, executes 0.20% or more of Consolidated Volume in midpoint and M-
ELO Orders, and removes at least 1.10% of Consolidated Volume during
the month; and (2) a $0.00305 per share executed credit to a member
that adds liquidity representing 1.20% or more of Consolidated Volume
during the month, executes 0.40% or more of Consolidated Volume in
midpoint and M-ELO Orders, and removes at least 1.10% of Consolidated
Volume during the month. As to the $0.00305 credit, the Exchange
proposes

to raise the liquidity removal threshold from 1.10% to 1.45% of
Consolidated Volume.
    The Exchange intends for the new proposed credit to be more
challenging for members to achieve than the existing $.00295 credit,
but not quite as challenging to achieve as the $0.00305 credit. If
members that currently qualify for $0.00295 credit assess that the new
$0.0030 credit is readily attainable, whereas the $0.00305 is not so,
then they may increase their liquidity adding and removing activities
on the Exchange to qualify for it, and the quality of the market will
improve, to the benefit of all participants.
    Meanwhile, the proposal to increase the liquidity removal
requirement for the $0.00305 credit from 1.10% to 1.45% of Consolidated
Volume will encourage those participants that already qualify for the
credit to increase the extent of their liquidity removal activity on
the Exchange in order to continue to qualify for it. From time to time,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to recalibrate the criteria for
credits such as this one to ensure that the credits remain
appropriately challenging for participants to attain in light of
changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange.
New Growth Tiers for Adding Displayed Liquidity
    The Exchange proposes to add two new credits that will encourage
its members to add and grow the extent to which they add significant
volumes on liquidity to the Exchange, including liquidity that
establishes the NBBO. First, the Exchange proposes to provide a $0.0026
per share executed credit to a member that, through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs: (i) Provides shares of liquidity in all
securities that represent equal to or greater than 0.15% of
Consolidated Volume during the month; (ii) increases the extent to
which it provides liquidity in all securities by 20% or more as a
percentage of Consolidated Volume during the month relative to the
month of May 2021; and (iii) has a ratio of at least 50% NBBO liquidity
provided to liquidity provided by displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) during the month.
Second, the Exchange proposes to provide a higher credit to a member
that engages in higher levels of this same activity. Namely, the
Exchange proposes to provide a $0.0027 per share executed credit to a
member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs: (i)
Provides shares of liquidity in all securities that represent equal to
or greater than 0.20% of Consolidated Volume during the month; (ii)
increases the extent to which it provides liquidity in all securities
by 35% or more as a percentage of Consolidated Volume during the month
relative to the month of May 2021; and (iii) has a ratio of at least
60% NBBO liquidity provided to liquidity provided by displayed quotes/
orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders)
during the month.
    Again, the Exchange intends for these new credits to improve market
quality by encouraging members to add significant volumes of liquidity
during the month, by growing such activity over time, and by providing
liquidity that is valued by participants because it sets the NBBO.
Supplemental Credits for Midpoint Orders
    The Exchange proposes to provide two new supplemental credits for
midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that
receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of
the NBBO) that provide liquidity to the Exchange. These credits will be
in addition to other credits otherwise available to members for adding
non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange, but a member's activity will
qualify it to receive only one of the two new supplemental credits at a
time, meaning that they are not cumulative. Additionally, members that
receive a supplemental credit will be entitled to a combined credit
(regular and supplemental) up to a maximum of $0.0027 per share
executed, meaning that if a member is entitled to a regular credit of
$0.0026 per share executed as well as the $0.002 [sic] per share
executed supplemental credit, the total combined credit provided to the
member will be $0.0027 per share executed, rather than the full $0.0028
per share executed.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide supplemental credits
for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging
that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the
midpoint of the NBBO) as follows: (1) $0.0001 per share executed if the
member, during the month (i) provides at least 15 million shares of
midpoint liquidity per day during the month; and (ii) increases
providing liquidity through midpoint orders by 10% or more relative to
the member's May 2021 average daily volume provided through midpoint
orders; or (2) $0.0002 per share executed if the member, during the
month (i) provides at least 15 million shares of midpoint liquidity per
day during the month; and (ii) increases providing liquidity through
midpoint orders by 30% or more relative to the member's May 2021
average daily volume provided through midpoint orders.
    The purpose of these new credits is to provide extra incentives to
members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange to do so
through midpoint orders, as well as to grow substantially the extent to
which they provide midpoint orders to the Exchange relative to a recent
benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if such incentives are
effective, then any ensuing increase in midpoint liquidity to the
Exchange will once again improve market quality, to the benefit of all
participants.
    The Exchange notes that it proposes to cap combined regular and
supplemental credits at $0.0027 per share executed to manage the costs
to the Exchange of providing these incentives. The Exchange has only
limited resources available to it for incentive programs, and it must
ensure that it allocates such resources appropriately to optimize their
intended impacts.
Amend Applicability of Existing Charges for Routed Orders Using RTFY
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the applicability of
two of its existing transaction fees. First, it proposes to amend the
existing $0.0030 per share executed fee that it assesses to members
that use the RTFY order routing option to execute orders which remove
more than 4 million shares of liquidity from the Exchange or execute in
a venue with a protected quotation under Regulation NMS other than
Nasdaq. Second, it proposes to amend the $0.00 per share executed fee
that it applies to members that use the RTFY order routing option to
execute orders which remove up to 4 million shares of liquidity from
the Exchange or execute in a venue with a protected quotation under
Regulation NMS other than Nasdaq. The Exchange proposes to amend these
charges by stating that it will not count RTFY-routed shares that
execute in so-called ``taker-maker'' venues when it calculates whether
a member has exceeded the 4 million share threshold that applies to
both charges. The Exchange also proposes to exclude taker-maker RTFY
executions from any fees that a member incurs for RTFY executions to
the extent that the member exceeds the 4 million share threshold
through executions at non-taker-maker venues.
    The Exchange proposes to exclude RTFY-routed shares executed at
taker-maker venues from the fee qualification

calculations and from the fees themselves because taker-maker venues
typically do not charge fees to Nasdaq for RTFY to access their
liquidity, whereas maker-taker venues do so. In other words, the
Exchange charges a fee to participants that use RTFY to execute large
volumes of shares at venues other than Nasdaq to help Nasdaq to recover
the costs it incurs for when such shares access liquidity at maker-
taker venues. Because taker-maker venues do not contribute
substantially to Nasdaq's RTFY routing costs, Nasdaq believes that it
is reasonable to exclude RTFY shares that execute on taker-maker venues
from Nasdaq's determination as to whether a participant's RTFY activity
during a month meets the 4 million share threshold to incur the $0.0030
per share executed fee. For the same reason, it is also reasonable to
exclude RTFY shares executed on taker-maker venues from any RTFY
execution fees otherwise incurred.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and further the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that they
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility,
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposals are also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposals Are Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposals are reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[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'. . . .'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposals represent reasonable attempts by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish new
transaction credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a), because each of these
new credits will encourage the addition of and/or growth in the
addition of various types of displayed and non-displayed liquidity to
the Exchange, including M-ELO, midpoint, Tape B securities, and NBBO-
setting liquidity, as well as the removal of liquidity in one instance.
    First, the proposed new credit of $0.0028 per share executed--which
will apply to members that add liquidity representing 0.45% or more of
Consolidated Volume during the month, and add shares of liquidity in
Tape B Securities of 0.10% or more of Consolidated Volume--will provide
a new opportunity to members to earn a credit for providing significant
volumes of liquidity to the Exchange without having to meet the more
stringent qualifying criteria that apply to existing similarly-
structured $0.00295 and $0.0030 per share credits. Similarly, the
proposed new credit of $0.0030 per share executed--which will apply to
members that (i) add liquidity to the Exchange representing 0.875% or
more of Consolidated Volume during the month, (ii) execute 0.25% or
more of Consolidated Volume during the month in providing midpoint or
M-ELO Orders, and (iii) remove from the Exchange liquidity representing
at least 1.35% of Consolidated Volume during the month--will encourage
members that currently qualify for an existing $0.00295 per share
executed credit for providing a significant amount of liquidity to the
Exchange, including midpoint and M-ELO orders, and for removing a
significant amount of liquidity from the Exchange, to further increase
the extent of these activities on the Exchange to earn a higher $0.0030
credit, particularly if they deem the criteria for the new credit to be
more readily achievable than are the criteria to qualify for the
existing $0.00305 per share executed credit.
    Meanwhile, the proposal to increase the liquidity removal
requirement for the $0.00305 credit from 1.10% to 1.45% of Consolidated
Volume will encourage those participants that already qualify for the
credit to increase the extent of their liquidity removal activity on
the Exchange in order to continue to qualify for it. From time to time,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to recalibrate the criteria for
credits such as this one to ensure that the credits remain
appropriately challenging for participants to attain in light of
changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange.
    It is also reasonable for the Exchange to establish $0.0026 and
$0.0027 per share executed credits to members that: (i) Provide
liquidity greater than certain threshold percentages of Consolidated
Volume during the month; (ii) increase their liquidity providing
activity in all securities by specified percentages of Consolidated
Volume during the month relative to the month of May 2021; and (iii)
achieve specified ratios of NBBO liquidity provided to liquidity
provided by displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) during the month. These two new credits will
encourage its members to add and grow the extent to which they add
significant volumes of

liquidity to the Exchange, including liquidity that establishes the
NBBO.
    Next, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish two new
supplemental credits for midpoint orders (other than buy (sell) orders
with Midpoint Pegging that receive execution prices that are lower
(higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) as follows: (1) $0.0001 per
share executed if the member, during the month (i) provides at least 15
million shares of midpoint liquidity per day during the month; and (ii)
increases providing liquidity through midpoint orders by 10% or more
relative to the member's May 2021 average daily volume provided through
midpoint orders; or (2) $0.0002 per share executed if the member,
during the month (i) provides at least 15 million shares of midpoint
liquidity per day during the month; and (ii) increases providing
liquidity through midpoint orders by 30% or more relative to the
member's May 2021 average daily volume provided through midpoint
orders. These proposals are reasonable because they will provide extra
incentives to members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the
Exchange to do so through midpoint orders, as well as to grow
substantially the extent to which they provide midpoint orders to the
Exchange relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes
that if such incentives are effective, then any ensuing increase in
midpoint liquidity to the Exchange will once again improve market
quality, to the benefit of all participants.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to exclude from the
supplemental credits orders with Midpoint Pegging which execute at
prices less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO because such
orders already receive price improvements, such that members do not
require additional inducements to enter these orders on the Exchange.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to cap the
amount of combined regular and supplemental credits it proposes to
offer members under this program to $0.0027 per share executed. This
cap will allow the Exchange to manage its costs of providing these
incentives. The Exchange has only limited resources available to it for
incentive programs, and it must ensure that it allocates such resources
appropriately to optimize their intended impacts.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to exclude
RTFY-routed shares that are executed at taker-maker venues from its
calculations for determining whether RTFY participants will incur a
$0.0030 per share executed fee when their shares execute at away venues
as well as from the fee itself, to the extent it is otherwise
applicable to a member. Taker-maker venues typically do not charge fees
to Nasdaq for RTFY to access their liquidity, whereas maker-taker
venues do so. The Exchange charges a fee to participants that use RTFY
to execute large volumes of shares at venues other than Nasdaq to help
Nasdaq to recover the costs it incurs for such shares to access
liquidity at maker-taker venues. Because taker-maker venues do not
contribute substantially to Nasdaq's RTFY routing costs, Nasdaq
believes that it is reasonable to exclude RTFY shares that execute on
taker-maker venues from Nasdaq's determination as to whether a
participant's RTFY activity during a month meets the 4 million share
threshold to incur the $0.0030 per share executed fee. For the same
reason, it is also reasonable to exclude RTFY shares executed on taker-
maker venues from any RTFY execution fees otherwise incurred.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the proposals are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent
qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Equitable Allocations of Credits
    The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation to
establish new transaction credits and otherwise modify the eligibility
requirements for its transaction credits because the proposals will
encourage members to increase the extent to which they add liquidity to
or remove liquidity from the Exchange. To the extent that the Exchange
succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity addition or removal
activity on the Exchange, including in categories of liquidity for
which there is an observed need or demand, such as midpoint, M-ELO, and
Tape B securities, and NBBO-setting liquidity, then the Exchange will
experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit
all market participants. The Exchange also believes it is equitable to
recalibrate existing criteria for its credits to ensure that the
credits remain appropriately challenging for participants to attain in
light of changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable to exclude
RTFY-routed shares that are executed at taker-maker venues from the
Exchange's determinations as to whether RTFY participants will incur a
$0.0030 per share executed fee when their shares execute at away
venues, as well as from the fee itself, to the extent that it is
otherwise applicable to a member. Taker-maker venues typically do not
charge fees to Nasdaq for RTFY to access their liquidity, whereas
maker-taker venues do so. Because taker-maker venues do not contribute
substantially to Nasdaq's RTFY routing costs, which the $0.0030 fee
exists to defray, Nasdaq believes that it is equitable to exclude
shares that execute on taker-maker venues from Nasdaq's determination
as to whether a participant's RTFY activity during a month meets the 4
million share threshold to incur the $0.0030 per share executed fee.
For the same reason, it is also equitable to exclude RTFY shares
executed on taker-maker venues from any RTFY execution fees otherwise
incurred.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposals Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange believes that its proposals to adopt new credits or
otherwise amend the qualifying criteria for its transaction credits are
not unfairly discriminatory because these credits are available to all
members. Moreover, these proposals stand to improve the overall market
quality of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants, by
incentivizing members to increase the extent of their liquidity adding
or removal activity on the Exchange, including in categories of
liquidity for which there is an observed need or demand, such as
midpoint, M-ELO, and Tape B securities, and NBBO-setting liquidity. The
Exchange also

believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to recalibrate existing
criteria for its credits to ensure that the credits remain
appropriately challenging for participants to attain in light of
changes to their levels of activity on the Exchange.
    Meanwhile, the Exchange's proposal is not unfairly discriminatory
to exclude RTFY-routed shares that are executed at taker-maker venues
from the Exchange's determination as to whether RTFY participants will
incur a $0.0030 per share executed fee when their shares execute at
away venues, as well as from the fee itself, to the extent it is
otherwise applicable to a member. Although the proposal stands to
benefit RTFY participants that execute large volumes of shares at
taker-maker venues, insofar as such participants will no longer stand
to pay a routing fee because of such execution activity, the Exchange
believes it is fair to provide this benefit because taker-maker venues
typically do not charge fees to Nasdaq for RTFY to access their
liquidity, whereas maker-taker venues do so. Because taker-maker venues
do not contribute substantially to Nasdaq's RTFY routing costs, which
the $0.0030 fee exists to defray, Nasdaq believes that it is fair to
exclude shares that execute on taker-maker venues from Nasdaq's
determination as to whether a participant's RTFY activity during a
month meets the 4 million share threshold to incur the $0.0030 per
share executed fee. For the same reason, it is also not unfairly
discriminatory to exclude RTFY shares executed on taker-maker venues
from any RTFY execution fees otherwise incurred.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposals will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
    As noted above, Nasdaq's proposals to add and amend its transaction
credits are intended to have market-improving effects, to the benefit
of all members. Any member may elect to achieve the levels of liquidity
required in order to qualify for the new or amended credits.
    Likewise, the Exchange's proposal will not duly burden competition
to exclude RTFY-routed shares that are executed at taker-maker venues
from the Exchange's determinations as to whether RTFY participants will
incur a $0.0030 per share executed routing fee, and from the fee
itself, to the extent that it is otherwise applicable to a member.
Although the proposal stands to benefit RTFY participants that execute
large volumes of shares at taker-maker venues, insofar as such
participants will no longer stand to pay a routing fee because of such
execution activity, the Exchange believes it is fair to provide this
benefit because taker-maker venues typically do not charge fees to
Nasdaq for RTFY to access their liquidity, whereas maker-taker venues
do so. Because taker-maker venues do not substantially contribute to
Nasdaq's RTFY routing costs, which the $0.0030 fee exists to defray,
Nasdaq believes that it is fair to exclude shares that execute on
taker-maker venues from Nasdaq's determination as to whether a
participant's RTFY activity during a month meets the 4 million share
threshold to incur the $0.0030 per share executed fee. For the same
reason, it is also fair to exclude RTFY shares executed on taker-maker
venues from any RTFY execution fees otherwise incurred.
    The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the proposed qualification
criteria for or amounts of these credits or fees are not attractive. As
one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition
between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving
freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The
Exchange notes that its pricing tier structure is consistent with
broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other industries, as
described above.
Intermarket Competition
    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 credits and 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 credits and
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed new and amended credits and fees are reflective of
this competition because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities
exchanges by volume, the Exchange has less than 20% market share, which
in most markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market
power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price
competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market
share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit
changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and among
off-exchange venues which comprises upwards of 44% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposals to add new and amend its transaction
credits are pro-competitive in that the Exchange intends for them to
increase liquidity addition or removal activity on the Exchange,
thereby rendering the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to
market participants. Meanwhile, the Exchange's proposal to exclude from
the RTFY routing fees and fee calculation shares executed in taker-
maker venues is pro-competitive in that it will render the Exchange's
RTFY routing option more attractive to participants.
    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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-053 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-2021-053. 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-2021-053 and should be submitted
on or before July 28, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14388 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47822-47823]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0076]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated July 12, 2013, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0076.
    Applicant: Port of Los Angeles, Mr. Ron Groves, PE, Senior Civil
Engineer, Engineering Division, 425 South Palos Verdes Street, San
Pedro, CA 90731.
    POLA seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of Control Point
(CP) Transfer Junction at Milepost 1.2 on the Pacific Harbor Line, San
Pedro Subdivision. CP Transfer Junction will

be discontinued and all associated signal equipment consisting of Power
Switch 1, Absolute Signals 2E, 2WA, and
2WC, and two ``D'' inoperative approach signals will be
removed.
    The reason given for the proposed changes is the construction of
new yard storage tracks that will require the discontinuance of CP
Transfer Junction.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 20, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-18828 Filed 8-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89677]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-707-000]

Quartz Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Quartz Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file 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 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 10, 2024.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). From
the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 21, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28694 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62019-62021]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24350]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; FRL-9917-62-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP)
submission from Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. The proposed rulemaking associated with
today's final action was published on July 25, 2014, and EPA received
one comment pertaining to infrastructure for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS during the comment period, which ended on August 25, 2014. The
2008 lead (Pb), and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) infrastructure SIPs were also addressed
in the proposed rulemaking but will be addressed in a separate final
rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969. 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., Confidential Business
Information 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Sarah Arra at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
    A. What does this rulemaking address?
    B. Why did the state make this SIP submissions?
    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. The state submitted the infrastructure SIP for the
2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2013.

B. Why did the state make this SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions
needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS
already meet those requirements.
    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance
documents, including the most recent guidance document entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' issued on September
13, 2013.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Ohio that addresses the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the

visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    A detailed rationale, history, and interpretation related to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in our May 13, 2014
proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008
Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?''
(see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (``SSM'') at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies ``SSM''; (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (collectively referred
to as ``director's discretion''); and, (iii) existing provisions for
PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of
EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002),
as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead,
EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in
separate rulemaking.
    In addition, EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--
Interstate transport, section 110(a)(2)(J)--visibility protection, and
portions of Ohio's submission addressing the prevention of significant
deterioration, sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) portion of (J) for 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)--
Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its
entirety. The rationale for not acting on elements of these
requirements was included in EPA's July 25, 2014 proposed rulemaking.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to Ohio's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS closed on August 25, 2014. EPA received one comment
letter related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and a synopsis of the adverse
comments contained in this letter, as well as EPA's response, are
provided below.
    Comment: The State of Connecticut asserts that Connecticut's
ability to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS is substantially compromised by
interstate transport of pollution from upwind states. Specifically,
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) modeling shows emissions from
Ohio contributing to the nonattainment problem in Connecticut. The
State of Connecticut asserts it has done its share to reduce in-state
emissions, and EPA should ensure that each upwind state addresses
contribution to another downwind state's nonattainment. Connecticut
states that CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states like Ohio to submit,
within three years of promulgation of a new NAAQS, a plan which
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS
within the state. Connecticut characterizes Ohio's 2008 ozone
submission for the good neighbor element of Ohio's SIP as relying on
state regulations which implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule and
CSAPR, and that such programs were intended by EPA to address the 1997
ozone NAAQS and not the more stringent 2008 standard. Connecticut
asserts EPA should therefore disapprove the Ohio submission.
Connecticut also argues that, under section 110(a)(2), Ohio was
required to submit a complete SIP that demonstrated compliance with the
good neighbor provision of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Connecticut
further argues that the CAA does not give EPA discretion to take no
action on the submitted good neighbor provisions on the grounds of
taking a separate action. Instead, it asserts that the only action
available to EPA is to determine the approvability of the good neighbor
provision of Ohio's 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission, or
promulgate a FIP under section 110(c)(1) within two years.
    Response: As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR),
this action does not address, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the good
neighbor provision in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibits
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. Thus, to the extent the
comment relates to the substance or approvability of the good neighbor
provision in Ohio's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission, the
comment is not relevant to the present rulemaking. As stated herein and
in the NPR, EPA will take later, separate action to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA disagrees with the commenters' argument that EPA cannot approve
a SIP without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve the states' SIP revisions in separable parts was included in
the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve
individual measures in a plan submission without either approving or
disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of
Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    The Agency interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) as
affording EPA the discretion to approve or conditionally approve
individual elements of Ohio's infrastructure submission for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, separate and apart from any action with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS.
EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other
infrastructure elements, and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing
EPA to act on individual severable measures in a plan submission. In
short, EPA has discretion under section 110(k) to act upon the various
individual elements of the state's infrastructure SIP submission,
separately or together, as appropriate. The commenters raise no
compelling legal or environmental rationale for an alternate
interpretation.
    EPA notes, however, that it is working with state partners to
assess next steps to address air pollution that crosses state
boundaries and will later take a separate action to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA's approval of the Ohio
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the portions
described in the NPR was therefore appropriate.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    The proposed rulemaking associated with today's final action was
published on July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43338). The 2008 Pb, 2010
NO2, and 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIPs were also
addressed in the proposed rulemaking but will be addressed in a
separate final rulemaking.
    For the reasons discussed in our proposed rulemaking and in the
above

response to public comment, EPA is taking final action to approve, as
proposed, Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Our final
actions by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in the
table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Element                             2008 Ozone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control         A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data   A
 system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures............  A
(C)2: PSD program for Pb.....................  NA
(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD....  NA
(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and PM10          NA
 condensables for PSD.
(C)5: PM2.5 Increments.......................  NA
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD         NA
 regulations.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere    NA
 with maintenance of NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD....................................  NA
(D)3: Visibility Protection..................  NA
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement.........  A
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement......  A
(E): Adequate resources......................  A
(E): State boards............................  A
(F): Stationary source monitoring system.....  A
(G): Emergency power.........................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions....................  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan           NA
 revisions under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with government officials.  A
(J)2: Public notification....................  A
(J)3: PSD....................................  NA
(J)4: Visibility protection..................  +
(K): Air quality modeling and data...........  A
(L): Permitting fees.........................  A
(M): Consultation and participation by         A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A--Approve.
NA--No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
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 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 (Pub. L. 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 CAA; 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).
    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.1891 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1891  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval-- In a December 27, 2012, submittal, supplemented on
June 7, 2013, Ohio certified that the State has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H),
and (J) through (M) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. We are not finalizing
action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Interstate transport, the visibility
portions of section 110(a)(2)(J), and submissions addressing the
prevention of significant deterioration requirements (PSD) in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and the PSD portion of (J).

[FR Doc. 2014-24350 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16093-16094]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Midland International Air and Space Port, City of Midland, Midland
County, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTIONS: Notice of Availability, Notice of Public Comment Period,
Notice of Public Meeting, and Request for Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), Council on

Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the availability of and
requesting comments on the Draft EA for the Midland International Air
and Space Port, City of Midland, Midland County, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; telephone
(202) 267-5924; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EA was prepared to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the City of Midland's proposal to
operate a commercial space launch site at the Midland International
Airport (MAF) in Midland County, Texas and offer the site to XCOR
Aerospace, Inc. (XCOR) for the operation of the Lynx horizontal take-
off and horizontal landing reusable launch vehicle (RLV) and engine
testing. To operate a commercial space launch site, the City of Midland
must obtain a commercial space launch site operator license from the
FAA. Under the Proposed Action addressed in the EA, the FAA would: (1)
Issue a launch site operator license to the City of Midland for the
operation of a commercial space launch site at MAF, (2) issue
experimental permits and/or launch licenses to XCOR that would allow
XCOR to conduct launches of the Lynx RLV from MAF, and (3) provide
unconditional approval to modify the existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
to reflect the designation of a launch site boundary, installation of
aboveground propellant storage tanks, and construction of a concrete
pad for engine testing. Proposed launch operations would begin in 2014
and continue through 2018. The frequency of launch operations would
initially be one launch per week, eventually increasing to two launches
per day, five days a week. Fifty-two annual launch operations are
proposed in 2014. The total number of annual launch operations would
increase each year until 2018 when 520 annual launch operations are
proposed.
    The Draft EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under
the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site
operator license to the City of Midland and thus would not issue
experimental permits and/or launch licenses to XCOR for operation of
the Lynx RLV at MAF. Also, there would be no need to update the ALP for
MAF, and thus there would be no approval of a revised ALP. Existing
commercial aviation and military operations would continue at MAF.
    The impact categories considered in the Draft EA include air
quality; compatible land use; Department of Transportation Act: Section
4(f); fish, wildlife, and plants; floodplains; hazardous materials,
pollution prevention, and solid waste; historical, architectural,
archaeological, and cultural resources; natural resources and energy
supply; noise; socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice, and
children's environmental health and safety risks; water quality; and
wetlands. The Draft EA also considers the potential cumulative
environmental impacts.
    The FAA has posted the Draft EA on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/.
    A paper copy of the Draft EA may be reviewed during regular
business hours at the following libraries:
 Midland County Library, 301 West Missouri Avenue, Midland, TX
79701
 Ector County Library, 321 W. 5th Street, Odessa, TX 79761
 Reagan County Library, 300 Courthouse Square, Big Lake, TX
76932
The FAA will hold an open house public meeting to solicit comments from
the public concerning the scope and content of the Draft EA.
 April 8, 2014, 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., The University of Texas
of the Permian Basin, Center for Energy & Economic Diversification
(CEED), Foyer Room, 1400 N. FM 1788, Midland, TX 79707
    The public will be able to speak to project representatives one-on-
one and submit written comments or provide oral comments to a
stenographer.

DATES: The FAA encourages all interested parties to provide comments
concerning the scope and content of the Draft EA. To ensure that all
comments can be addressed in the Final EA, comments on the draft must
be received by the FAA no later than April 21, 2014. Reviewers should
organize their comments to be meaningful and inform the FAA of their
interests and concerns by quoting or providing specific references to
the text of the Draft EA. Matters that could have been raised with
specificity during the comment period on the Draft EA may not be
considered if they are raised for the first time later in the decision
process. This commenting procedure is intended to ensure that
substantive comments and concerns are made available to the FAA in a
timely manner so that the FAA has an opportunity to address them.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments in writing to Mr. Daniel Czelusniak,
Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC
20591; or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on: March 18, 2014.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-06360 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P