[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47187-47193]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78334; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Paragraph (c) to Exchange
Rule 11.27 To Describe Changes to System Functionality Necessary To
Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot
Program

July 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 29, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 filed a proposal to adopt paragraph (c) to Exchange
Rule 11.27 to describe changes to System \3\ functionality necessary to
implement the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot
Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'').\4\ In determining the scope of the
proposed changes to implement the Pilot,\5\ the Exchange carefully
weighed the impact on the Pilot, System complexity, and the usage of
such order types in Pilot Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System'' is defined as the ``electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(aa).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
    \5\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site

at www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the Exchange,
Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Bats
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''),
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX
BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(collectively ``Participants''), filed with the Commission, pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,
the Plan to implement a tick size pilot program.\7\ The Participants
filed the Plan to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June
24, 2014.\8\ The Plan was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 7, 2014, and approved by the Commission, as modified, on
May 6, 2015.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \9\ See Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small-
capitalization companies. Each Participant is required to comply, and
to enforce compliance by its member organizations, as applicable, with
the provisions of the Plan.
    The Pilot will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least
$2.00 for every trading day. The Pilot will consist of a Control Group
of approximately 1400 Pilot Securities and three Test Groups with 400
Pilot Securities in each Test Group selected by a stratified
sampling.\10\ During the Pilot, Pilot Securities in the Control Group
will be quoted and traded at the currently permissible increments.
Pilot Securities in the first Test Group (``Test Group One'') will be
quoted in $0.05 minimum increments but will continue to trade at any
price increment that is currently permitted.\11\ Pilot Securities in
the second Test Group (``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05
minimum increments and will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject
to a midpoint exception, a retail investor order exception, and a
negotiated trade exception.\12\ Pilot Securities in the third Test
Group (``Test Group Three'') will be subject to the same restrictions
as Test Group Two and also will be subject to the ``Trade-at''
requirement to prevent price matching by a market participant that is
not displaying at a price of a Trading Center's \13\ ``Best Protected
Bid'' or ``Best Protected Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception
applies.\14\ The same exceptions provided under Test Group Two will
also be available under the Trade-at Prohibition, with an additional
exception for Block Size orders and exceptions that mirror those under
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \11\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan.
    \12\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \13\ The Plan incorporates the definition of ``Trading Center''
from Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS defines a
Trading Center as ``a national securities exchange or national
securities association that operates an SRO trading facility, an
alternative trading system, an exchange market maker, an OTC market
maker, or any other broker or dealer that executes orders internally
by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent.''
    \14\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \15\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Accordingly, the Exchange adopted paragraph (a) of Rule 11.27 to
require Members \16\ to comply with the quoting and trading provisions
of the Plan.\17\ The Exchange also adopted paragraph (b) of Rule 11.27
to require Members to comply with the data collection provisions under
Appendix B and C of the Plan.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker
or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.''
See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77291 (March 3,
2016), 81 FR 12543 (March 9, 2016) (SR-BATS-2015-108).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77105 (February
10, 2016), 81 FR 8112 (February 17, 2016) (SR-BATS-2015-102); and
77310 (March 7, 2016), 81 FR 13012 (March 11, 2016) (SR-BATS-2016-
27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed System Changes
    The Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (c) of Exchange Rule 11.27
to describe changes to System functionality necessary to implement the
Plan. Paragraph (c) of Rule 11.27 would set forth the Exchange's
specific procedures for handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying
of certain order types and order type instructions applicable to Pilot
Securities. Unless otherwise indicated, paragraph (c) of Rule 11.27
would apply to order types and order type instructions in Pilot
Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and Three and not to orders in
Pilot Securities included in the Control Group. The proposed changes
include select and discrete amendments to the operation of: (i) BZX
Market Orders; (ii) Market Pegged Orders; (iii) Mid-Point Peg Orders;
(iii) [sic] Discretionary Orders; (iv) [sic] Non-Displayed Orders; (v)
[sic] Market Maker Peg Orders; (vi) [sic] Supplemental Peg Orders; and
(vii) [sic] orders subject to the Display-Price Sliding process.
    In determining the scope of these proposed changes to implement the
Plan, the Exchange carefully weighed the impact on the Pilot, System
complexity, and the usage of such order types in Pilot Securities.
These proposed changes are designed to directly comply with the Plan
and to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations
pursuant to the Plan. As discussed below, certain of these changes are
also intended to reduce risk in the System by eliminating unnecessary
complexity based on infrequent current usage of certain order types in
Pilot Securities and/or their limited ability to execute under the
Trade-at Prohibition. Therefore, the Exchange firmly believes that
these changes will have little or no impact on the operation and data
collection elements of the Plan. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed rule

changes are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and
trading requirements specified in the Plan.
BZX Market Orders
    A BZX Market Order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a
security that is to be executed at the NBBO when the order reaches the
Exchange. BZX Market Orders shall not trade through Protected
Quotations.\19\ Any portion of a BZX Market Order that would execute at
a price more than $0.50 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time
the order initially reaches the Exchange, whichever is greater, will be
cancelled.\20\ In order to comply with the minimum quoting increments
set forth in the Plan, the Exchange proposes to state under proposed
Rule 11.27(c)(1) that for purposes of determining whether a BZX Market
Order's execution price is more than 5 percent worse than the NBBO
under Rule 11.9(a)(2), the execution price for a buy (sell) order will
be rounded down (up) to the nearest $0.05 increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2).
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Pegged Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend the operation of Market Pegged
Orders to reduce risk in its System by eliminating unnecessary
complexity based on infrequent current usage in Pilot Securities and
their limited ability to execute under the Trade-at Prohibition in Test
Group Three. A Pegged Order is a limit order that after entry into the
System, the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the System
in response to changes in the NBBO. A Pegged Order will peg to the NBB
or NBO or a certain amount away from the NBB or NBO.\21\ A Market
Pegged Order is pegged to the contra-side NBBO.\22\ A User \23\
entering a Market Pegged Order can specify that such order's price will
offset the inside quote on the contra-side of the market by an amount
(the ``Offset'') set by the User. Market Pegged Orders are not eligible
to be displayed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8).
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8)(B).
    \23\ A ``User'' is defined as any member or sponsored
participant of the Exchange who is authorized to obtain access to
the System pursuant to Rule 11.3. See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Test Groups One and Two, the Exchange proposes to modify the
behavior of Market Pegged Order when it is locked by an incoming BZX
Post Only Order \24\ or Partial Post Only at Limit Order \25\ that does
not remove liquidity pursuant to Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule
11.9(c)(7),\26\ respectively. In such case, the Market Pegged Order
would be converted to an executable order and will remove liquidity
against such incoming order. In no case would a Market Pegged Order
execute against an incoming BZX Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at
Limit Order if an order with higher priority is on the BZX Book.\27\
Specifically, if an order other than a Market Pegged Order maintains
higher priority than one or more Market Pegged Orders, the Market
Pegged Order(s) with lower priority will not be converted, as described
above, and the incoming BZX Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at
Limit Order will be posted or cancelled in accordance with Rule
11.9(c)(6) or Rule 11.9(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6).
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7).
    \26\ A BZX Post Only Order will remove contra-side liquidity
from the BZX Book if the order is an order to buy or sell a security
priced below $1.00 or if the value of such execution when removing
liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such execution if the order
instead posted to the BZX Book and subsequently provided liquidity,
including the applicable fees charged or rebates provided. See
Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(6). A Partial Post Only at Limit Order will
remove liquidity from the BZX Book up to the full size of the order
if, at the time of receipt, it can be executed at prices better than
its limit price. See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(7).
    \27\ The term ``BZX Book'' is defined as the ``System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Market Pegged Orders are aggressive by
nature and believes executing the order in such circumstance is
appropriate. The Exchange also notes that the proposed behavior for
Market Pegged Orders in Test Groups One and Two is identical to the
operation of orders with the Super Aggressive Routing instruction under
Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(4)(C). When an order with a Super Aggressive
instruction is locked by an incoming BZX Post Only Order or Partial
Post Only at Limit Order that does not remove liquidity pursuant to
Rule 11.9(c)(6) or Rule 11.9(c)(7), respectively, the order is
converted to an executable order and will remove liquidity against such
incoming order. In addition, like as proposed above, in no case would
an order with a Super Aggressive instruction execute against an
incoming BZX Post Only Order or Partial Post Only at Limit Order if an
order with higher priority is on the BZX Book. The Exchange believes
this change is reasonable and appropriate due to the limited usage of
Market Pegged Orders in Pilot Securities, to avoid unnecessary
additional System complexity, and to ensure the Market Pegged Order may
execute in such circumstance.
    The Exchange also proposes to not accept Market Pegged Orders in
Test Group Three based on limited current usage, additional System
complexity, and their limited ability to execute under the Trade-at
Prohibition. Exchange Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) sets forth the Trade-at
Prohibition, which is the prohibition against executions by a Member
that operates a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or the execution of a
buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a
Protected Offer during Regular Trading Hours,\28\ unless an enumerated
exception applies.\29\ The Exchange believes that their de minimis
usage and limited ability to execute due to the Trade-at Prohibition
does not justify the complexity that would be created by supporting
Market Pegged Orders in Test Group Three. A vast majority of Market
Pegged Orders are entered into the System with a zero Offset and,
therefore, create a locked market with the contra-side NBBO. Under the
Trade-at Prohibition, a Market Pegged Order would not be eligible for
execution at the locking price, including when a Trade-at Intermarket
Sweep Order (``ISO'') \30\ is entered, because of non-cleared contra-
side Protected Quotations. For example, assume the NBBO is $10.00
(NYSE) x $10.05 (Nasdaq) in a Test Group 3 security. A Market Pegged
Order to buy at $10.10 with a zero Offset is entered on the Exchange.
The order would be ranked and hidden on the BZX Book at $10.05. A
Trade-at ISO to sell at $10.05 is then entered. In this example, no
execution occurs on the Exchange because Nasdaq is displaying an order
to sell at $10.05. The Trade-at ISO instruction only indicates that all
of the better and equal priced buy orders have been cleared. It does
not indicate that the seller has cleared any Protected Offers.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to not accept Market Pegged

Orders in Test Group Three in an effort to reduce unnecessary System
complexity, avoid an internally locked book, and due to the limited
execution opportunities for Market Pegged Orders due to the Trade-at
Prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The term ``Regular Trading Hours'' is defined as ``the time
between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(w).
    \29\ See also Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \30\ A Trade-at ISO is a Limit Order for a Pilot Security that
meets the following requirements: (i) When routed to a Trading
Center, the limit order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket
Sweep Order; and (ii) simultaneously with the routing of the limit
order identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against
the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to
sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case
of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is
better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. See Exchange Rule
11.27(a)(7)(A)(i). These additional routed orders also must be
marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mid-Point Peg Orders
    A Mid-Point Peg Order is an order whose price is automatically
adjusted by the System in response to changes in the NBBO to be pegged
to the midpoint of the NBBO, or, alternatively, pegged to the less
aggressive of the midpoint of the NBBO or one minimum price variation
\31\ inside the same side of the NBBO as the order.\32\ The Plan and
current Exchange rules permit the acceptance of orders priced to
execute at the midpoint of the NBBO to be ranked and accepted in
increments of less than $0.05.\33\ Consistent with previous guidance
issued by the Participants,\34\ the Exchange proposes to amend the
operation of Mid-Point Peg Orders to explicitly state that Mid-Point
Peg Orders in Pilot Securities may not be entered in increments other
than $0.05. The System will execute a Mid-Point Peg Order: (i) In $0.05
increments priced better than the midpoint of the NBBO; or (ii) at the
midpoint of the NBBO, regardless of whether the midpoint of the NBBO is
in an increment of $0.05. In order to comply with the minimum quoting
and trading increments of the Plan and reduce unnecessary System
complexity, a Mid-Point Peg Order will not be permitted to
alternatively peg to one minimum price variation inside the same side
of the NBBO as the order in Pilot Securities. The Exchange believes
that the current de minimis usage of the alternative pegging
functionality in Pilot Securities does not justify the complexity and
risk that would be created by re-programming the System to support this
functionality under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Exchange Rule 11.11.
    \32\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(9).
    \33\ See Sections VI(B), (C), and (D) of the Plan. See also
Exchange Rules 11.27(a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6).
    \34\ See e.g., Question 42 of the Tick Size Pilot Program
Trading and Quoting FAQs available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/TSPP-Trading-and-Quoting-FAQs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretionary Orders
    The Exchange proposes to not accept Discretionary Orders in all
Test Groups, including the Control Group, to reduce risk in the System
by eliminating unnecessary complexity based on infrequent current usage
in Pilot Securities. In sum, a Discretionary Order is a Limit Order
with a displayed or non-displayed ranked price and size and an
additional non-displayed ``discretionary price''.\35\ The discretionary
price is a non-displayed upward offset at which a User is willing to
buy, if necessary, or a non-displayed downward offset at which a User
is willing to sell, if necessary. The System changes necessary for a
Discretionary Order to comply with the Plan become increasingly complex
because both the displayed price and discretionary price must comply
with the Plan's minimum quoting and trading increments as well as the
Trade-at restriction in Test Group Three. In addition, Users do not
currently set discretionary prices less than $0.05 away from the
order's displayed price and the Exchange does not anticipate Users
doing so under the Plan. To date, Discretionary Orders are rarely
entered in Pilot Securities and the Exchange anticipates their usage to
further decrease due to the Plan's minimum quoting increments. The
Exchange believes that the current extremely limited usage of
Discretionary Orders in Pilot Securities does not justify the
additional System complexity that would be created by supporting
Discretionary Orders. As a result of these factors the Exchange
proposes to not accept Discretionary Orders in all Test Groups and the
Control Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Displayed Orders
    The Exchange proposes to re-price to the midpoint of the NBBO Non-
Displayed Orders in Test Group Three that are priced in a permissible
increment better than the midpoint of the NBBO. A Non-Displayed Order
is a Market or Limit Order that is not displayed on the Exchange.\36\
Exchange Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) incorporates the Trade-at Prohibition in
the Exchange's rules. The Trade-at Prohibition prevents the execution
of a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price
of a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security
in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer during Regular
Trading Hours, unless an exception applies. A Trading Center that is
displaying a quotation, via either a processor or an SRO quotation
feed, that is a Protected Bid or Protected Offer is permitted to
execute orders at that level, but only up to the amount of its
displayed size. Unless an exception applies, a Non-Displayed Order that
is able to execute at the price of the Protected Quotation would not be
able to do so in Test Group Three due to the Trade-at Prohibition and
the Exchange's priority rule.\37\ Furthermore, such aggressively priced
orders would not be able to post to the BZX Book at the contra-side
Protected Quotation, and re-pricing the order to the midpoint of the
NBBO would increase execution opportunities under normal market
conditions. However, orders that are priced to execute at the midpoint
of the NBBO are exempt from the Trade-at Prohibition. Therefore, to
increase the execution opportunities for Non-Displayed Orders in Test
Group Three, the Exchange proposes to re-price to the midpoint of the
NBBO Non-Displayed Orders that are priced in a permissible increment
better than the midpoint of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(11).
    \37\ Under Exchange Rule 11.12(a)(2), displayed Limit Orders
have priority over Non-Displayed Limit Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Peg Orders
    A Market Maker Peg Order is a Limit Order that is automatically
priced by the System at the Designated Percentage (as defined in
Exchange Rule 11.8) away from the then current NBB and NBO, or if no
NBB or NBO, at the Designated Percentage away from the last reported
sale from the responsible single plan processor in order to comply with
the quotation requirements for Market Makers set forth in Exchange Rule
11.8(d).\38\ Should the above pricing result in a Market Maker Peg
Order being priced at an increment other than $0.05, the Exchange
proposes to round an order to buy (sell) up (down) to the nearest $0.05
increment in order to comply with the minimum quoting increments of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Peg Orders
    The Exchange proposes to not accept Supplemental Peg Orders in Test
Group Three in order to reduce risk in the System by eliminating
unnecessary complexity based on infrequent current usage in Pilot
Securities and their limited ability to execute under the Trade-at
Prohibition. A Supplemental Peg Order is a non-displayed Limit Order
that posts to the BZX Book, and thereafter is eligible for execution at
the NBB for buy orders and NBO for sell orders against routable orders
that are equal to or less than the aggregate size of the Supplemental
Peg Order interest available at that price.\39\ In sum, Supplemental
Peg Orders are only executable at the NBBO against an order that is in
the process of being routed away. In such case, the Exchange is not
displaying a Protected Quotation and, therefore, the Supplemental Peg
Order would be unable to execute in Test Group Three due to the Trade-
at

Prohibition.\40\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to not accept
Supplemental Peg Orders in Test Group Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(19).
    \40\ The Exchange notes that the likelihood of a Supplemental
Peg Order qualifying for an exception to the Trade-at Prohibition is
small. For example, Supplemental Peg Orders are only executable
against orders that are to be routed away and would not be eligible
to execute against an incoming ISO or Trade-at ISO. Also, the
Exchange would not be displaying a Protected Quotation. In addition,
the Exchange does not frequently receive orders of Block Size and,
in order to qualify for the Block exception, the contra-side Block
Order must be routable and the Supplemental Peg Order be of Block
Size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Display-Price Sliding
    Under the Display-Price Sliding process, an order eligible for
display by the Exchange that, at the time of entry, would create a
violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS by locking or crossing a
Protected Quotation of an external market, will be ranked at the
locking price in the BZX Book and displayed by the System at one
minimum price variation (i.e., $0.05) below the current NBO (for bids)
or one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for offers).\41\
The ranked and displayed prices of an order subject to the Display-
Price Sliding process may be adjusted once or multiple times depending
upon the instructions of a User and changes to the prevailing NBBO.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(1)(A).
    \42\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, Exchange Rule 11.27(a)(6)(D) sets forth the
Trade-at Prohibition, which is the prohibition against executions by a
Member that operates a Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot
Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or the
execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at
the price of a Protected Offer during Regular Trading Hours, unless an
exception applies. Orders that are priced to execute at the midpoint of
the NBBO are exempt from the Trade-at Prohibition. Therefore, to
increase the execution opportunities and qualify for the mid-point
exception to the Trade-at Prohibition, the Exchange proposes to rank
orders in Test Group Three that are subject to the Display-Price
Sliding process at the midpoint of the NBBO in the BZX Book and display
such orders one minimum price variation below the current NBO (for
bids) or one minimum price variation above the current NBB (for
offers).
    The Exchange also proposes to cancel orders subject to Display-
Price Sliding in Test Group Three that are only to be adjusted once and
not multiple times in the event the NBBO widens and a contra-side Non-
Displayed Order is resting on the BZX Book at the price to which the
order subject to Display-Price Sliding would be adjusted. Due to the
increased minimum quoting increments under the Plan, the Exchange is
unable to safely re-price an order subject to single Display-Price
Sliding in Test Group Three to the original locking price in such
circumstances and doing so would add additional System complexity and
risk. As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to rank orders in Test
Group Three subject to the Display-Price Sliding process at the
midpoint of the NBBO. In the event the NBBO changes such that an order
subject to Display-Price Sliding would not lock or cross a Protected
Quotation of an external market, the order will receive a new
timestamp, and will be displayed at the order's limit price.\43\ Due to
technological limitations arising from the increased minimum quoting
increments under the Plan, however, the Exchange is unable to safely
re-program its System to re-price such order to the original locking
price when the NBBO widens and a contra-side Non-Displayed Order is
resting on the BZX Book at the price to which the order subject to
Display-Price Sliding would be adjusted. Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to cancel orders subject to the single Display-Price Sliding
process in such circumstances. Users who prefer an execution in such a
scenario may elect to use the multiple Display-Price Sliding process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ministerial Change
    Currently, both Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 11.27(a) and
Interpretation and Policy .11 to Rule 11.27(b) state that Rule 11.27
shall be in effect during a pilot period to coincide with the pilot
period for the Plan (including any extensions to the pilot period for
the Plan). The Exchange proposes to include this language at the
beginning of Rule 11.27 and, therefore, proposes to delete both
Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 11.27(a) and Interpretation and
Policy .11 to Rule 11.27(b) as those provisions would be redundant and
unnecessary. The Exchange also proposes to amend the last sentence of
Rule 11.27(a)(4) to specify that the current permissible price
increments are set forth under Exchange Rule 11.11, Price Variations.
Implementation Date
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed
rule change will be effective upon Commission approval and shall become
operative upon the commencement of the Pilot Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \44\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \45\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Plan requires the
Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable
quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan. The proposed
rule change is designed to comply with the Plan, reduce complexity and
enhance System resiliency while not adversely affecting the data
collected under the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes are reasonably designed to comply with applicable
quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan and, as
discussed further below, other applicable regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes regarding BZX
Market Orders, Mid-Point Peg Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders, and
Display-Price Sliding are consistent with the Act because they are
intended to modify the Exchange's System to comply with the provisions
of the Plan, and are designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its
regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the
SEC noted that the Pilot was an appropriate, data-driven test that was
designed to evaluate the impact of a wider tick size on trading,
liquidity, and the market quality of securities of smaller
capitalization companies, and was therefore in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. To the extent that these proposals are intended to
comply with the Plan, the Exchange believes that these proposals are in
furtherance of the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the
Commission, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposed changes to Market
Pegged Orders, Discretionary Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, Supplemental
Peg Orders, and Display-Price Sliding are also consistent with the Act
because

they are intended to eliminate unnecessary System complexity and risk
based on the de minimis current usage of such order types and
instructions in Pilot Securities and/or their limited ability to
execute under the Plan's minimum trading and quoting increments or
Trade-at Prohibition.\46\ For example, during March 2016, the
alternative pegging functionality of Mid-Point Peg Orders, Market
Pegged Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Supplemental Peg Orders
accounted for 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.92%, and 0.01%, respectively, of volume
in eligible Pilot Securities on the Exchange, BYX, EDGA and EDGX
combined. Notably, Discretionary Orders accounted for 0.00% of volume
in eligible Pilot Securities on the Exchange, BYX, EDGA and EDGX
combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Commission has also expressed concern regarding
potential market instability caused by technological risks. See
e.g., Chair Mary Jo White, Commission, Enhancing Our Equity Market
Structure (June 5, 2014) available at https://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.VD2HW610w6Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity
(``Regulation SCI'') in November 2014 to strengthen the technology
infrastructure of the U.S. securities markets.\47\ Regulation SCI is
designed to reduce the occurrence of systems issues, improve resiliency
when systems problems do occur, and enhance the Commission's oversight
and enforcement of securities market technology infrastructure.
Regulation SCI required the Exchange to establish written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that their systems have levels
of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security adequate
to maintain their operational capability and promote the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, and that they operate in a manner that
complies with the Exchange Act. Each of these proposed changes are
intended to reduce complexity and risk in the System to ensure the
Exchange's technology remains robust and resilient. In determining the
scope of the proposed changes, the Exchange carefully weighed the
impact on the Pilot, System complexity, and the usage of such order
types in Pilot Securities.\48\ The potential complexity results from
code changes for a majority of the Exchange's order types, which
requires the implementation and testing of a separate branch of code
for each Test Group. For example, the Exchange currently utilizes one
branch of code for which to implement and test changes. Development
work for the Pilot results in the creation of four additional branches
of code that are to be developed and tested (e.g., Control Group +
three Test Groups). The Exchange determined that the changes proposed
herein are necessary to ensure continued System resiliency in
accordance with the requirements of Regulation SCI. Therefore, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (``Regulation SCI Approval
Order'').
    \48\ But for the Plan, the Exchange notes that it would not have
proposed to amend the operation of Market Pegged Orders,
Discretionary Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, Supplemental Peg Orders,
and Display-Price Sliding as described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, each of these proposed changes would have a de minimis
to zero impact on the data reported pursuant to the Plan. As evidenced
above, Market Pegged Orders, Discretionary Orders, the alternative
pegging functionality of Mid-Point Peg Orders, and Supplemental Peg
Orders are infrequently used in Pilot Securities or the execution of
such orders would be scarce due to the Plan's minimum trading and
quoting requirement and Trade-at Prohibition. The limited usage and
execution scenarios do not justify the additional system complexity
which would be created by modifying the System to support such order
types in order to comply with the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange
believes each proposed change is a reasonable means to ensure that the
System's integrity, resiliency, and availability continues to promote
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Due to the additional
complexity, limited usage and execution opportunities, the Exchange
believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to apply the changes
proposed herein to only Pilot Securities as such changes are necessary
to reduce complexity and ensure continued System resiliency in
accordance with the requirements of Regulation SCI. The Exchange also
believes the proposed changes to Non-Displayed Orders, and orders
subject to the Display-Price Sliding process in Test Group Three are
consistent with the Act because they are designed to increase the
execution opportunities for such order types in compliance with the
mid-point exception to the Trade-at Prohibition. The Exchange also
believes the proposed change to Market Pegged Orders in Test Groups One
and Two is consistent with the Act because it is identical to the
operation of the Super Aggressive instruction under Exchange Rule
11.13(b)(4)(C). The Exchange notes that Market Pegged Orders are
aggressive by nature and believes executing the order in such
circumstance is reasonable and appropriate.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and appropriate to
cancel an order subject to the single Display-Price Sliding process in
Test Group Three in the event that the NBBO widens and a contra-side
Non-Displayed Order is resting on the BZX Book at the price to which
the order subject to Display-Price Sliding would be adjusted. Due to
technological limitations and the Plan's increased minimum quoting
increments, the Exchange is unable to safely re-program its System to
re-price such orders to the original locking price in such
circumstances. The Exchange also anticipates that the scenario under
which it proposes to cancel the Display-Price Sliding order will be
infrequent in Tick Pilot Securities. Users who prefer an execution in
such a scenario may elect to use the multiple Display-Price Sliding
process. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act
to set forth this scenario in its rules so that Users will understand
how the System operates and how their orders would be handled in this
discrete scenario.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes the ministerial changes to Rule 11.27
are also consistent with the Act as they would: (i) Clarify a provision
under paragraph (a)(4); and (ii) remove redundant provisions from the
rule.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change is designed to assist the Exchange
in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan, reduce
System complexity and enhance resiliency. The Exchange also notes that
the proposed rule change will apply equally to all Members that trade
Pilot Securities.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on
the issue described below.
    In the Approval Order, the Commission stressed the importance of
testing the impact of wider tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of
the securities of small capitalization companies, and doing so in a way
that produces robust results that inform future policy decisions.\49\
The Commission acknowledged the complexity of the Pilot and the costs
that its implementation would create for market participants, but
concluded that the benefits of the empirical data that would be
produced by the Pilot warranted incurring those costs.\50\ As a result,
the Plan requires that each Participant, including the Exchange, adopt
rules that are necessary for compliance with the provisions of the
Plan.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Approval Order, supra note 4, at 80 FR 27515.
    \50\ Id at 27516.
    \51\ See Section II(B) of the Plan. See also Section IV of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange states that the proposed rule change describes
the system changes necessary to implement the Pilot, the Commission
notes that the scope of the proposed changes extends beyond those
required for compliance with the Plan, and would eliminate certain
order types for Pilot Securities during the Pilot Period, or modify
their operation in ways not required by the Plan. For example, the
Exchange proposes not to accept Market Pegged Orders, Discretionary
Orders, and Supplemental Peg Orders, and certain types of Mid-Point Peg
Orders, in some or all Test Groups of Pilot Securities for the duration
of the Pilot Period.\52\ These proposals appear designed to permit the
Exchange to avoid the costs of modifying these order types to comply
with the Plan. The Exchange notes that these order types are
infrequently used in Pilot Securities, and takes the position that
``[t]he limited usage and execution scenarios do not justify the
additional system complexity which would be created by modifying the
System to support such order types in order to comply with the Plan.''
\53\ At the same time, the Exchange also does not appear prepared to
propose to eliminate these order types indefinitely. By contrast, the
Exchange proposes to modify, in ways not required by the Plan, the
operation of Market Pegged Orders and Non-Displayed Orders, and certain
orders subject to the Display-Price Sliding process, in some or all
Test Groups of Pilot Securities, and to incur the associated system
change costs, in order to increase the ``execution opportunities'' for
these order types for the duration of the Pilot Period.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The Exchange also proposes to cancel certain orders subject
to the Display-Price Sliding process in certain Pilot Securities for
the duration of the Pilot Period.
    \53\ See supra Item II.A.2.
    \54\ See supra Item II.A.1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is concerned that proposed rule changes, other than
those necessary for compliance with Plan, that are targeted at Pilot
Securities, that have a disparate impact on different Test Groups and
the Control Group, and that are to apply temporarily only for the Pilot
Period, could bias the results of the Pilot and undermine the value of
the data generated in informing future policy decisions. Accordingly,
the Commission is concerned that the proposed rule change may not be
consistent with Act, including Section 6(b)(5) thereof and Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS, or with the Plan.
    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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-29 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 No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-29 and should be
submitted on or before August 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17093 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 66402]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IS20-89-000]

ONEOK North System, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

    Take notice that on November 26, 2019, ONEOK North System, L.L.C.
(ONEOK North System) filed multiple Tariffs \1\ to update its
Allocation Policy. ONEOK North System states that the changes to ONEOK
North System's Allocation Policy are at the request of Shippers as a
result of the alternative dispute resolution process initiated by the
Commission, in order to provide immediate applicability in support of
emergency shipments of propane in response to concerns over demand for
propane in the region served by the ONEOK North System. ONEOK North
System proposes to make changes to its allocation procedure to allow
Shippers to transfer allocated capacity to another Shipper during the
time period December 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and to receive
credit to their allocation history for barrels moved by the replacement
Shipper. ONEOK North System seeks waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 341.14 of
the notice requirements in section 6(3) of the Interstate Commerce Act
to make the tariff effective November 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ONEOK North System filed Tariffs 33.21.0, 34.18.0, 35.14.0,
37.15.0, 38.16.0, 39.20.0, 40.13.0, 42.31.0, 43.17.0, 44.15.0,
45.15.0, 47.8.0, and 48.1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice is given that the deadline pursuant to 18 CFR 343.3 for
filing protests to Enterprise TE filing is hereby shortened to and
including December 4, 2019. The deadline for filing responses is
shortened to and including December 6, 2019. Any person desiring to
intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Protest Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 4, 2019.
    Response Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on December 6, 2019.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26203 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 191)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56262-56265]
[DOCID:fr03oc07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27015; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-169-AD;
Amendment 39-15215; AD 2007-20-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-112
Airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding two existing airworthiness directives
(ADs). One AD applies to all Airbus Model A319 and A320 airplanes and
currently requires repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue
cracking in the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings, and corrective
actions if necessary. The other AD applies to all Airbus Model A319,
A320, and A321 airplanes and currently requires a revision to the
Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA). This new AD requires new revisions to
the ALS of the ICA to incorporate service life limits for certain items
and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or
corrosion in certain structures; and accomplishment of the repetitive
ultrasonic inspections of the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings in
accordance with the revised ALS of the ICA. This AD also adds airplanes
to the applicability. This AD results from issuance of new and more
restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on
fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in
principal structural elements and to prevent failure of certain life
limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 7, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 7,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
 or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.
    Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France, for service information identified in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov

or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the ground
floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2004-03-06, amendment
39-13450 (69 FR 5909, February 9, 2004) and AD 2005-02-09, amendment
39-13954 (70 FR 3871, January 27, 2005). AD 2004-03-06 applies to all
Airbus Model A319 and A320 airplanes, and AD 2005-02-09 applies to all
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on January 26, 2007 (72 FR 3768). That NPRM
proposed to require new revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations
section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to
incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to
detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain
structures; and accomplishment of the repetitive ultrasonic inspections
of the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings in accordance with the
revised ALS of the ICA. That NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the
applicability.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.

Support for the NPRM

    Airbus supports the NPRM. Northwest Airlines and United Airlines
agree with the intent of the NPRM.

Request To Incorporate Certain Service Information

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member U.S.
Airways, requests that we incorporate the following documents into this
AD: Airbus Operator Information Telex (OIT) 999.0049/06, dated April
14, 2006; Airbus OIT 999.0055/06/CL, dated May 4, 2006; and the Airbus
A318/A319/A320/A321 Scheduled Maintenance Data (SMD). The commenters
further request that we revise this AD to allow operators to use later
revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items,
Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96 (hereafter referred to as the ``Airbus
ALI''), as acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
As justification for its request, US Airways states that Airbus will be
revising the SMD and ALI on a regular basis.
    We agree to refer to Airbus ALI, Issue 08, dated March 2006
(approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on January 4,
2007); and Issue 09, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on May
21, 2007); as appropriate sources of service information for
accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD. We have
also revised paragraph (j)

of this AD accordingly. In the NPRM, we referred to Airbus ALI, Issue
7, dated December 2005 (approved by the EASA on February 7, 2006), as
the appropriate source of service information. Issue 08 of the Airbus
ALI adds Model A320-215 and -216 airplanes and Model A321-214 airplanes
to the applicability of certain ALI tasks. Since these airplanes have
not yet been type certificated in the U.S., incorporating Issue 08 of
the Airbus ALI into this AD does not expand the scope of the AD. Issue
09 of the Airbus ALI extends the compliance time for certain ALI tasks
and adds new tasks for Model A318-121 and -122 airplanes. This AD does
not apply to Model A318-121 and -122 airplanes, since Issue 09 of the
Airbus ALI was approved as part of the type certification basis for the
Model A318-121 and -122 airplanes. Therefore, incorporating Issue 09 of
the Airbus ALI into this AD does not expand the scope of the AD.
    We do not agree to allow the use of future revisions to the Airbus
ALI because we are prohibited from referring to documents that do not
yet exist. Additionally, we do not agree to refer to the other service
information requested by the commenters, since this AD only mandates
incorporation of Issue 7, 08, or 09 of the Airbus ALI and Sub-parts 1-2
and 1-3 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1--Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated February 28, 2006.

Request To Extend Grace Period

    United Airlines requests that, if ALI Tasks 552007-01-1 and 552007-
01-2 are required, we add an additional grace period for accomplishing
these tasks. As justification, United Airlines states that a longer
grace period is needed to account for the development of new tooling or
a non-destructive inspection method that could produce more conclusive
findings than the current inspection method. United Airlines states
that it has discussed this subject with Airbus, and that Airbus and the
EASA are reviewing the matter. United Airlines further states that
Airbus has not provided allowable damage limits in Chapter 55-21-11,
page series 101, of the Airbus Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for
acceptable findings, which would permit proceeding without repair until
the next inspection. United Airlines believes that Airbus is pursuing
such relief; however, the timing is unknown.
    We agree to extend the grace period for accomplishing ALI Task
552007-01-1 from 20 months to 40 months, in accordance with Issue 09 of
the Airbus ALI. As discussed previously, we have revised paragraphs (i)
and (j) of this AD to refer to Issue 09 of the Airbus ALI. However, we
do not agree to extend the grace period for ALI Task 552007-01-2. The
commenter has not recommended a specific amount of time for extending
the compliance time, or provided data showing that an extension in the
compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. If data
are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an
acceptable level of safety, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of
this AD, we might approve the request for an adjustment to the
compliance time. Further, if the EASA issues a new airworthiness
directive to extend the compliance time for these tasks or to revise
the task instructions, we will consider further rulemaking. We have not
revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Exclude Certain ALI Tasks

    The ATA, on behalf of its member United Airlines, and Northwest
Airlines (NWA) request that we exclude ALI Tasks 552007-01-1 and
552007-01-2 from the requirements of this AD. These ALI tasks involve
thermographic inspections to detect the presence of water in the carbon
fiber composite structure of the elevator control surfaces. United
Airlines states that, based on inspections it has conducted, this
method of inspection has not provided conclusive evidence of water
ingression; its findings were limited to manufacturing defects. United
Airlines also states that the inspection process is questionable, and
that there is no effective non-destructive verification tool currently
available to validate the presence of water. United Airlines asserts
that the current process is more destructive to the elevator, as the
skins and core in the area were removed and subsequently repaired.
    United Airlines also states that these ALI tasks were incorporated
into the Airbus ALI without MSG-3 Analysis review by the Industry
Structures Working Group. United Airlines states that composite
structures are not subject to fatigue-based analysis and, therefore, do
not fit into the Airbus ALI. United Airlines also states that, to date,
it has not identified any cases of delamination on the elevators
inspected by the same techniques in accordance with AD 2002-18-01 and
the ALI. United Airlines further states that Airbus has not reported
any in-service incidents resulting from elevator aerodynamic
limitations.
    NWA states that the tasks should be required by an AD-mandated
service bulletin instead of including the tasks in the Airbus ALI. NWA
asserts that the elevator water ingression resulted from a design
problem that would more appropriately be managed through the service
bulletin process. NWA states that including the tasks in the ALI
document diminishes visibility of the unsafe condition and avoids
coordination between the manufacturer and operators in identifying the
scope and corrective actions for the unsafe condition. NWA also states
that including the tasks into the ALI document increases the risk of
record retention and compliance issues. NWA further states that
inclusion of non-fatigue-based inspections for easily removable parts
into the Airbus ALI could potentially change NWA's maintenance program.
NWA asserts that safety items of this complexity demand rigorous and
thorough review prior to implementation, which can best be achieved
through the airworthiness concern coordination process that has been
successfully used for years by the industry.
    We do not agree to exclude ALI Tasks 552007-01-1 and 552007-01-2
from the requirements of this AD. The commenters have not provided any
data to indicate that these inspections are not effective, or that
there is no unsafe condition. In addition, section 25.571 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) does not differentiate
between removable and non-removable structures, and tracking elevator
time would be required regardless of whether the problem was addressed
by a service bulletin or the Airbus ALI. Although we agree that the
ALIs primarily deal with fatigue issues, FAA Advisory Circular 20-107A,
``Composite Aircraft Structure,'' dated April 25, 1984, states that the
effects of temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors that
might result in material property degradation should be addressed in
the damage tolerance evaluation. Water ingress in the elevator
structure is clearly an environmental factor that could result in an
unsafe condition. Operators were given due process by publication of
the NPRM and the Airbus ALI. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase
the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average
labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                         Action                            Work      Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                          hours      airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALS revision(required by AD 2005-02-09)................        1             $80             720         $57,600
ALS revision (new action)..............................        1              80             720          57,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-13450 (69 FR 5909, February 9, 2004) and
amendment 39-13954 (70 FR 3871, January 27, 2005) and by adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-20-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-15215. Docket No. FAA-2007-27015;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-169-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective November 7, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-03-06 and AD 2005-02-09.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112,
A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA
has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC) 25.1529-1.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from issuance of new and more restrictive
service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue
testing and in-service findings. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in
principal structural elements and to prevent failure of certain life
limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2005-02-09

Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)

    (f) For all Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 6
months after March 3, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-02-09),
revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its
delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or
its delegated agent). One approved method of compliance is
incorporating Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD), sub-Section 9-1-2, ``Life Limited Parts,'' and sub-
Section 9-1-3, ``Demonstrated Fatigue Life Parts,'' both Revision
06, both dated June 13, 2003.

    Note 2: Airbus Service Information Letter 32-098, dated December
22, 2003, may be used as a source of service information for
managing life limited and demonstrated fatigue life parts that were
not previously tracked.

    (g) For all Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes; except Model
A319 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342
were incorporated during production: Within 6 months after March 3,
2005, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116; or the

DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the EASA (or its delegated agent).
One approved method of compliance is incorporating both Airbus A318/
A319/A320/A321 MPD, sub-Section 9-2, ``Airworthiness Limitation
Items,'' Revision 06, dated June 13, 2003; and Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs), Document AI/SE-M4/
95A.0252/96, Issue 6, dated May 15, 2003 (approved by the DGAC on
July 15, 2003).

New Requirements of This AD

Revise ALS To Incorporate Safe Life ALIs

    (h) For all airplanes: Within 3 months after the effective date
of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate Sub-part 1-2, ``Life Limits,'' and Sub-
part 1-3, ``Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,'' of Airbus A318/A319/A320/
A321 ALS Part 1--Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated
February 28, 2006 (hereafter referred to as ``ALS Part 1'').
Accomplish the actions in ALS Part 1 at the times specified in ALS
Part 1, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. For Model
A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, accomplishing the revision in this
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.

Revise ALS To Incorporate Damage-Tolerant ALIs

    (i) For all airplanes, except Model A319 airplanes on which
Airbus Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have been incorporated
in production: Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD,
revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation
Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005
(approved by the EASA on February 7, 2006) (hereafter referred to as
``Issue 7 of the ALI''); Issue 08, dated March 2006 (approved by the
EASA on January 4, 2007) (hereafter referred to as ``Issue 08 of the
ALI''); or Issue 09, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on
May 21, 2007) (hereafter referred to as ``Issue 09 of the ALI'').
Accomplish the actions in Issue 7, Issue 08, or Issue 09 of the ALI
at the times specified in Issue 7, Issue 08, or Issue 09 of the ALI,
as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. For
Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, accomplishing the revision in
this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD.

Grace Period for New or More Restrictive Actions

    (j) For any new or more restrictive life limit introduced with
ALS Part 1, replace the part at the time specified in ALS Part 1 or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is
later. For any new or more restrictive inspection introduced with
Issue 7, Issue 08, or Issue 09 of the ALI, do the inspection at the
time specified in Issue 7, Issue 08, or Issue 09 of the ALI, as
applicable, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is later.

No Alternative Life Limits, Inspections, or Inspection Intervals

    (k) After the actions specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of
this AD have been accomplished, no alternative life limits,
inspections, or inspection intervals may be used, except as provided
by paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

Related Information

    (m) EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0162, dated June 8, 2006;
and EASA airworthiness direction 2006-0165, dated June 13, 2006;
also address the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use the service information identified in Table 1
of this AD, as applicable, to perform the actions that are required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

              Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Revision/issue
     Service information           level                  Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321    Revision 00....  February 28, 2006.
 ALS Part 1--Safe Life
 Airworthiness Limitation
 Items.
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321    Issue 7........  December 2005.
 Airworthiness Limitation
 Items, Document AI/SE-M4/
 95A.0252/96.
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321    Issue 08.......  March 2006.
 Airworthiness Limitation
 Items, Document AI/SE-M4/
 95A.0252/96.
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321    Issue 09.......  November 2006.
 Airworthiness Limitation
 Items, Document AI/SE-M4/
 95A.0252/96.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Issue 7 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation
Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, contains the following errors:
The Summary of Changes is comprised of 11 pages, which are all
identified as Page 2--LEP of Section LEP instead of Page 1--SOC
[through] Page 11--SOC of Section SOC; the List of Effective Pages
only refers to Page 1--SOC for the Summary of Changes. The List of
Effective Pages is comprised of two pages, and both of those pages
are identified as Page 2--LEP. The first page of Section 2 is
identified as Page 6 of Section 1 and is not referred to in the List
of Effective Pages. Issue 08 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96,
contains the following errors: Pages 3--ROR and 2--SOC are not
referred to in the List of Effective Pages. The List of Effective
Pages are identified as Pages 1--SOC and 2--SOC, instead of 1--LEP
and 2--LEP. The first page of Section 2 is identified as Page 6 of
Section 1 and is not referred to in the List of Effective Pages.)
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19208 Filed 10-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17652-17653]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-53-000]

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. v. Public
Service Company of New Mexico; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on March 13, 2013, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2006) and Rules
206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission),
18 CFR 385.206 and 18 CFR 385.212, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. (Complainant), filed a complaint against
the Public Service Company of New Mexico (Respondent or PNM) alleging
that, PNM's current transmission rates are unjust and unreasonable. The
Complainant requests that the Commission set this matter for hearing,
establish a refund effective date as of the date of the complaint, and
consolidate the proceeding with Docket Nos. ER13-685-000, ER13-687-000,
and ER13-690-000.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the Complaint were
serviced on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials and parties the Complainant
reasonably expects to be affected by this Complaint, including all of
the parties that have intervened in Docket Nos. ER13-685-000, ER13-687-
000, and ER13-690-000.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2013.

    Dated: March 15, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06602 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73073-73074]
[DOCID:fr29no10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2063-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

November 18, 2010.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC............  Docket No. ER11-2063-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Duke Energy Vermillion II, 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 December 7, 2010.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29849 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 12088]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD16-3-000]

Notice of Availability of the Final Guidance Manual for
Environmental Report Preparation

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or
Commission) Office of Energy Projects has finalized its revised
Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (Guidance Manual),
which was issued in draft form on December 18, 2015, for comment. The
Guidance Manual has been revised to incorporate changed regulations;
provide updated guidance on how to prepare resource reports and how
interstate and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects may demonstrate
compliance with certain regulatory requirements; and address
substantive comments received on the draft Guidance Manual.
    The Guidance Manual can be found in Docket Number AD16-3-000. The
full text of the Guidance Manual can be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp.
    Applicable sections of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are referenced or summarized throughout the Guidance Manual. The
Guidance Manual is intended to provide guidance to the industry. This
manual does not substitute for, amend, or supersede the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 or the Commission's and
Council on Environmental Quality's regulations under the National
Environmental Policy Act. It imposes no new legal obligations and
grants no additional rights. Comments on the draft Guidance Manual that
addressed only the text of regulations were not incorporated in the
final Guidance Manual.
    In response to the draft Guidance Manual, Commission staff received
comments from a variety of industry representatives, trade
associations, federal and state agencies, non-governmental
organizations, public interest groups, consultants, and other
interested parties. Staff reviewed and considered each comment and
modified several portions of the document in response. Staff declined
to modify the document where comments either were too project- or
location-specific to be included in general guidance, were already
adequately/accurately addressed as written, or regarded topics that
were not relevant to the Guidance Manual or resource report
preparation.
    The Guidance Manual is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 relates
to the preparation of resource reports for both interstate natural gas
projects and Commission-jurisdictional LNG facilities. Volume 2 is
specific to LNG facilities and is intended to replace a series of
staff's previously developed guidance documents about the preparation
and review of LNG applications: Draft Guidance on Resource Report 11
and 13 issued on December 15, 2005, Draft Preferred Format Submittal
Guidance issued on April 12, 2006, and Draft FERC Seismic Design
Guidelines and Data Submittal Requirements for LNG Facilities issued on
January 23, 2007. These documents should be considered obsolete.
    All of the information related to the proposed updates to the
Guidance Manual and submitted comments can be found on the FERC Web
site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary
link, click on ``Docket Search'' and in the Docket Number field enter
the docket number ``AD16-3,'' excluding the last three digits. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.

    Dated: February 22, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03840 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P