[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 12501]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04394]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91214; File No. 265-33]

Asset Management Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being provided that the Securities and Exchange
Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee (``AMAC'') will hold a
public meeting on March 19, 2021, by remote means. The meeting will
begin at 9 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the
Commission's website at www.sec.gov. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed below. The public is invited to submit written
statements to the Committee. The meeting will include a discussion of
matters in the asset management industry relating to: (1) The ESG
Subcommittee, including a panel discussion on that Subcommittee's
potential recommendations of December 1, 2020; (2) the Diversity &
Inclusion and Private Investments Subcommittees, including potential
recommendations from those Subcommittees; and (3) AMAC's agenda for
2021.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on March 19, 2021. Written
statements should be received on or before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by remote means and webcast on
www.sec.gov. Written statements may be submitted by any of the
following methods. To help us process and review your statement more
efficiently, please use only one method. At this time, electronic
statements are preferred.

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-33 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements to Vanessa Countryman, Federal
Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-33. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. The Commission
will post all statements on the Commission's website at (http://www.sec.gov/comments/265-33/265-33.htm).
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. For up-to-date information on the availability of the
Public Reference Room, please refer to https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerspublicdocshtm.html or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All statements received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Broadbent, Senior Special
Counsel, or Jay Williamson, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division
of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Sarah ten Siethoff, Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 26, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-04394 Filed 3-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19791-19794]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07548]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69231; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Routing Fees

March 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 19, 2013, 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 NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend its Routing Fees.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on April 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to amend its Routing Fees at Chapter XV, Section
2(3) of the Exchange Rules in order to recoup costs that the Exchange
incurs for routing and executing orders in equity options to various
away markets.
    Today, the Exchange calculates Routing Fees by assessing certain
Exchange costs related to routing orders to away markets plus the away
market's transaction fee. The Exchange assesses a $0.05 per contract
\3\ fixed Routing Fee when routing orders to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(``PHLX'') and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options'') and a $0.11 per
contract \4\ fixed Routing Fee to all other options exchanges in
addition to the actual transaction fee or rebate paid by the away
market. The fixed Routing Fee is based on costs that are incurred by
the Exchange when routing to an away market in addition to the away
market's transaction fee. For example, the Exchange incurs a fee when
it utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router,\5\ to route orders
in options listed and open for trading to destination markets. Each
time NOS routes to away markets NOS incurs a clearing-related cost \6\
and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also
charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange also incurs administrative and technical costs
associated with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets, Options
Regulatory Fees (``ORFs'') and technical costs associated with routing
options. The transaction fee assessed by the Exchange is based on the
away market's actual transaction fee or rebate for a particular market
participant at the time that the order was entered into the Exchange's
trading system. This transaction fee is calculated on an order-by-order
basis, since different away markets charge different amounts. In the
event that there is no transaction fee or rebate assessed by the away
market, the only fee assessed is the fixed Routing Fee. With respect to
the rebate, the Exchange pays a market participant the rebate offered
by an away market where there is such a rebate. Any rebate available is
netted against a fee assessed by the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a previous rule filing, the Exchange discussed the manner
in which it analyzed costs related to routing to BX Options and PHLX
and determined the costs are lower as compared to other away markets
because NOS is utilized by all three exchanges to route orders. In
that filing the Exchange noted that because PHLX, BX Options and NOM
all utilize NOS, the cost to the Exchange is less as compared to
routing to other away markets. In addition the fixed costs are
reduced because NOS is owned and operated by NASDAQ OMX and the
three exchanges and NOS share common technology and related
operational functions. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68718
(January 24, 2013), 78 FR 6386 (January 30, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-
010).
    \4\ The $0.11 per contract Fixed Fee would apply to all options
exchanges other than BX Options and PHLX, which are discussed
separately in this proposal. The Exchange anticipates that if other
options exchanges are approved by the Commission after the filing of
this proposal, those exchanges would be assessed the $0.11 per
contract fee applicable to ``all other options exchanges.''
    \5\ See NASDAQ Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order
Routing).
    \6\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') assesses a
clearing fee of $0.01 per contract side. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68025 (October 10, 2012), 77 FR 63398 (October 16, 2012)
(SR-OCC-2012-18).
    \7\ For example, if a Customer order is routed to BOX, and BOX
offers a customer rebate of $0.20 per contract, the Exchange would
assess a $0.11 per contract fixed fee which would net against the
rebate ($0.20 per contract in this example). The market participant
for whom the Customer contract was routed would receive a $0.09 per
contract rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 recently filed a rule change to amend its transaction fees and
rebates for simple, non-complex orders, in equity options classes which
became operative on February 1, 2013.\8\ As a result of that filing the
Exchange amended its Pricing Schedule and today assesses non-Customer
simple, non-complex orders in equity options (single stock) that are
routed to C2 a Routing Fee which includes a fixed cost of $0.11 per
contract plus a flat rate of $0.85 per contract, except with respect to
Customers.\9\ With respect to Customers, the Exchange does not pass the
rebate offered by C2, rather, Customer simple, non-complex orders in
equity options (single stock) that are routed to C2 are assessed $0.00
per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68792 (January 31,
2013), 78 FR 8621 (February 6, 2013) (SR-C2-2013-004).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68976 (February 25,
2013), 78 FR 13928 (March 1, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to further simplify its Routing Fees by
assessing a flat rate of $0.95 per contract on all non-Customer orders
routed to any away market. The Exchange would no longer pass any rebate
paid by an away market for non-Customer orders. With respect to
Customer orders, the Exchange is proposing to continue to assess
Customer orders routed to PHLX a fixed fee of $0.05 per contract
(``Fixed Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed by
the away market. This fee is not changing. With respect to Customer
orders that are routed to BX Options, the Exchange will not assess a
Routing Fee and will not pass the rebate. Today, BX Options pays a
Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity as follows: Customers are paid
$0.12 per contract in IWM, SPY and QQQ, $0.32 per contract in All Other
Penny Pilot Options and $0.70 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot
Options.\10\ The Exchange is proposing to not assess a Routing Fee when
routing orders to BX Options because that exchange pays a rebate.
Instead of netting the customer rebate paid by BX Options against the
fixed fee,\11\ the Exchange would simply not assess a fee. Although
market participants routing to BX Options will not receive a credit, as
is the case today, market participants will not pay a Customer Routing
Fee when their orders are routed to BX Options with this proposal. The
Exchange proposes to assess a Customer Routing Fee of $0.11 per
contract (``Fixed Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee when
routing to an options exchange other than PHLX and BX Options, as is
the case today. The Exchange is amending the payment of rebates and
will no longer pay rebates when routing Customer orders to an away
market, instead the Exchange will not assess a Routing Fee if a
Customer order is routed to an away market that pays a rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BX Options Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
    \11\ BX Options does not assess a Customer a Fee to Remove
Liquidity in any symbols today. See Chapter V, Section 2(1) of the
BX Options Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in
response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule
change.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its pricing is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among its Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its non-Customer
Routing Fees from a fixed fee plus actual transaction charges to a flat
rate is reasonable because the flat rate makes it easier for market
participants to anticipate the Routing Fees which they would be
assessed at any given time. The Exchange believes that assessing all
non-Customer orders the same flat rate will provide market participants
with certainty with respect to Routing Fees. While, each destination
market's transaction charge varies and there is a

cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets,
including clearing costs, administrative and technical costs associated
with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets, ORFs and technical
costs associated with routing options, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the costs it incurs to
route non-Customer orders to away markets. Other exchanges similarly
assess a fixed rate fee to route non-Customer orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') assesses non-Customer fixed
rates of $0.57 and $0.95 per contract when routing to away markets.
See BATS BZX Exchange Fee Schedule. The Chicago Board Options
Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') assesses non-Customer orders a
$0.50 per contract routing fee in addition to the customary CBOE
execution charges. See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the non-Customer
Routing Fees from a fixed fee plus actual transaction charges to a flat
rate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
would uniformly assess the same Routing Fees to all non-Customer market
participants. Under its flat fee structure, taking all costs to the
Exchange into account, the Exchange may operate at a slight gain or a
slight loss for non-Customer orders routed to and executed at away
markets. The proposed Routing Fee for non-Customer orders is an
approximation of the maximum fees the Exchange will be charged for such
executions, including costs, at away markets. As a general matter, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fees will allow it to recoup and
cover its costs of providing routing services for non-Customer orders.
The Exchange believes that the fixed rate non-Customer Routing Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because market participants
have the ability to directly route orders to an away market and avoid
the Routing Fee. Participants may choose to mark the order as
ineligible for routing to avoid incurring these fees.\15\ The Exchange
routes orders to away markets where the Exchange's disseminated bid or
offer is inferior to the national best bid (best offer) (``NBBO'')
price and based on price first.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NASDAQ Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order
Routing).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to not pass a rebate that
is offered by an away market for non-Customer orders is reasonable
because to the extent that another market is paying a rebate, the
Exchange will assess a $0.95 per contract fee as its total cost in each
instance. The Routing Fee is transparent and simple. If a market
participant desires the rebate, the market participant has the option
to direct the order to that away market. Other options exchanges today
do not pass the rebate.\17\ The Exchange believes that its proposal to
not pass a rebate that is offered by an away market for non-Customer
orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would not pay such a rebate on any non-Customer order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and International Securities
Exchange LLC's (``ISE'') Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to BX
Options from $0.05 per contract in addition to the actual transaction
fee to $0.00 is reasonable, because, unlike PHLX,\18\ BX Options pays a
Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity as follows: Customers are paid
$0.12 per contract in IWM, SPY and QQQ, $0.32 per contract in All Other
Penny Pilot Options and $0.70 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot
Options.\19\ The Exchange believes that not assessing a fee for routing
orders to BX Options, instead of netting the customer rebate paid by BX
Options against the fixed fee \20\ is reasonable because although
market participants routing orders to BX Options will not receive a
credit, as is the case today with respect to Customer orders routed to
BX Options, the Routing Fee will be more transparent. Market
participants will not pay a Customer Routing Fee when routing orders to
BX Options with this proposal instead of the $0.05 per contract fee
netted against the rebate, as is the case today. The Exchange believes
that the proposed Customer Routing Fee to BX Options is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal would apply uniformly
to all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The PHLX Customer Routing Fee is not being amended by this
proposal. The Exchange would continue to assess Customer orders
routed to PHLX a $0.05 per contact Fixed Fee along plus the actual
transaction fee.
    \19\ See BX Options Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
    \20\ BX Options does not assess a Customer a Fee to Remove
Liquidity in any symbols today. See Chapter V, Section 2(1) of the
BX Options Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to also not
assess a Customer Routing Fee when routing to all other options
exchanges, except PHLX and BX Options, if the away market pays a
rebate. The Exchange will continue to assess a Fixed Fee of $0.11 per
contract plus the actual transaction charge assessed by the away market
when routing to all other options exchanges, except PHLX and BX
Options, but instead of paying the rebate, as is the case today, the
Exchange will not assess a Customer Routing Fee to that away market
because the Exchange will collect the rebate to offset the fee. The
Exchange believes that market participants will have more certainty as
to the Customer Routing Fee that will be assessed by the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for the Customer Routing
Fee to all other away markets, except PHLX and BX Options, is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because while the Exchange may operate
at a slight gain or a slight loss when routing Customer orders to the
away market, depending on the rebate paid by the away market, the
proposal would apply uniformly to all market participants when routing
to an away market that pays a rebate.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to assess Customer orders that are
routed to PHLX a Fixed Fee of $0.05 per contract and orders that are
routed to other away markets, other than PHLX and BX Options, a Fixed
Fee of $0.11 per contract because the cost, in terms of actual cash
outlays, to the Exchange to route to PHLX (and BX Options) \21\ is
lower. For example, costs related to routing to PHLX are lower as
compared to other away markets because NOS is utilized by all three
exchanges to route orders.\22\ NOS and the three NASDAQ OMX options
markets have a common data center and staff that are responsible for
the day-to-day operations of NOS. Because the three exchanges are in a
common data center, Routing Fees are reduced because costly expenses
related to, for example, telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity
are avoided when routing orders in this instance. The costs related to
connectivity to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are de
minimis. When routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange
incurs costly connectivity charges related to telecommunication lines
and other related costs when routing orders. The Exchange believes it
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pass along
savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to
market participants when those orders are routed to PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ With this proposal, the Exchange would not assess the $0.05
per contract Fixed Fee for routing orders to BX Options because that
exchange pays Customer rebates, which the Exchange would retain to
offset its cost.
    \22\ See Chapter VI, Section 11 of the NASDAQ and BX Options
Rules and PHLX Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess different fees for Customers
orders as compared to

non-Customer orders because the Exchange has traditionally assessed
lower fees to Customers as compared to non-Customers. Customers will
continue to receive the lowest fees or no fees when routing orders, as
is the case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower Routing
Fees for customer orders as compared to non-customer orders.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses ISE customer routing fees of $0.30 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $0.57 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposal creates intra-market competition because the Exchange
is applying the same Routing Fees and credits to all market
participants in the same manner dependent on the routing venue, with
the exception of Customers. The Exchange has proposed separate Customer
Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the lowest fees or no
fees when routing orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges
also assess lower Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to non-
customer orders.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to recoup its
costs when routing orders to away markets when such orders are
designated as available for routing by the market participant. The
Exchange is passing along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are
routed to PHLX and is providing those saving to all market
participants. Participants may choose to mark the order as ineligible
for routing to avoid incurring these fees.\25\ Today, other options
exchanges also assess fixed routing fees to recoup costs incurred by
the Exchange to route orders to away markets.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 15.
    \26\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees that are
assessed by the Exchange must remain competitive with fees charged by
other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those Participants that opt to direct orders to the
Exchange rather than competing venues.

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.\27\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2013-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-051. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-051, and should
be submitted on or before April 23, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07548 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42928-42930]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-501-000]

Port Arthur LNG, LLC, PALNG Common Facilities Company, LLC;
Notice of Amendment of Authorization and Establishing Intervention
Deadline

    Take notice that on June 21, 2023, Port Arthur LNG, LLC and PALNG
Common Facilities Company, LLC (together referred to as PALNG), 488 8th
Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 filed an amendment under section 3 of the
NGA to the existing authorization issued by the Commission on April 18,
2019, in Docket No. CP17-20-000 (2019 authorization or Liquefaction
Project).\1\ PALNG requests authorization to increase the peak
workforce to up to 6,000 persons per day, implement a 24-hours-per-day
construction schedule, and increase the number of onsite parking spaces
to 1,000 for the Liquefaction Project which will allow PALNG to
maintain a development schedule that that will maximize construction
efficiency and reduce traffic congestion in the project area. PALNG's
amendment request is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 167 FERC ] 61,052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Jerrod L. Harrison, Assistant General Counsel, Sempra Infrastructure,
488 8th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected] or to Brett A. Snyder or Lamiya Rahman, 1825
Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected] or [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
Federal and State agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all Federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: you can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a

motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 19, 2023. How to
file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
    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].

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\3\ any person \4\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. Protests must comply with the requirements specified in
section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations.\5\ A protest may
also serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it
also seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \4\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments on or before July 19, 2023.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP23-501-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below. Your written comments must reference the
Project docket number (CP23-501-000).
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\6\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \7\ and the regulations under the NGA \8\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 19, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. [For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene.] For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \8\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23-501-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your
motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP23-501-
000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email at: Jerrod L. Harrison, Assistant General
Counsel, Sempra Infrastructure, 488 8th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, or
at [email protected] or to Brett A. Snyder or Lamiya Rahman,
1825 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, or at
[email protected] or [email protected]. Any
subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the

applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online. Service can be via email with a link to the
document.
    All timely, unopposed \9\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\10\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\11\ A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \11\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 19, 2023.

    Dated: June 28, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14146 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17733-17736]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0301; Special Conditions No. 23-293-SC]

Special Conditions: Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A.; Model
P2012 Airplane; Installation of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A., Model P2012 airplane. These airplanes will
have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation
of a rechargeable lithium battery. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 26,
2019.
    We must receive your comments by May 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0301
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket
website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Hirt, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, AIR-694, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO; telephone
(816) 329-4108; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code Sec. Sec.
553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment are unnecessary because substantially identical special
conditions have been subjected to the public comment process in several
prior instances such that the FAA is satisfied that new comments are
unlikely. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists for
making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is
requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that
may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for
comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Special conditions No.               Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-15-01-SC \1\........................  Kestrel Aircraft Company/Model
                                          K-350.
23-16-02-SC \2\........................  Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd, Models
                                          PC12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47.
23-288-SC \3\..........................  St. Louis Helicopter, LLC,
                                          Textron Aviation Models B300,
                                          B300C, B300C(MC-12W), and
                                          B300C (UC-12W).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/39B156C006EB842E86257EF3004BB13C?OpenDocument&Highlight=installation%20of%20rechargeable%20lithium%20battery.
\2\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/5A2FEC165CB4913086258019005C34E2?OpenDocument&Highlight=23-278-sc.
\3\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/B2D62B06A314D74186258282005F5E04?OpenDocument&Highlight=23-288-sc.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On March 13, 2018, Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A. (Tecnam)
applied for FAA validation of its type certificate for its new Model
P2012 airplane. The airplane is a normal category, metallic, non-
pressurized, high wing, monoplane that will seat nine passengers and
two flightcrew. Two wing mounted Lycoming Model TEO-540-C1A piston
engines driving four blade variable pitch constant speed MT-Propellers
USA, Inc. Model MTV-14-B-C-F/CF195-30b propellers power the airplane.
The airplane has fixed tricycle landing gear, a Garmin G1000 NXi
avionics suite, and a maximum takeoff weight of 7,937 pounds. The Model
P2012 has rechargeable lithium batteries installed for higher energy
density instead of the nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) or lead-acid rechargeable
batteries.
    The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not
contain adequate requirements for use of rechargeable lithium batteries
in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain
failure and operational characteristics with maintenance requirements
that differ significantly from that of the nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) and
lead-acid rechargeable batteries approved in Sec.  23.1553, amendment
23-62 or earlier, for other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter
category airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is issuing this special
condition to address--
     All characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries
and their installation that could affect safe operation of the Model
P2012 airplane; and
     Appropriate Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
that include maintenance requirements to ensure the availability of
electrical power from the batteries when needed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.17, Tecnam must show that the
Model P2012 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as
amended by amendment 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model P2012 airplane because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model P2012 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to
the other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model P2012 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: The installation of a rechargeable lithium
battery--intended as energy storage for the airplane--will power the
essential load for continued safe flight and landing if the electrical
generating system fails.

Discussion

    The applicable regulations governing the installation of batteries
in general aviation airplanes were derived from Civil Air Regulations
(CAR) 3 as part of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23.
The battery requirements identified in Sec.  23.1353 were a rewording
of the CAR requirements. Subsequent rulemaking activities--resulting
from increased incidents of Ni-Cd battery fire or failures--added Sec.
23.1353(f) and (g), amendments 23-20 and 23-21, respectively. The FAA
did not envision the introduction of lithium battery installations when
these regulations were published.
    The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA
to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. We determined the
existing regulations do not adequately address the safety of lithium
battery installations.
    Current experience with rechargeable lithium batteries in
commercial or general aviation is limited. However, other users of this
technology--ranging from personal computers, to wireless telephone
manufacturers, to the electric vehicle industry--have noted safety
problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems, as
described in the following paragraphs, include overcharging, over-
discharging, flammability of cell components, cell internal defects,
and hazards resulting from exposure to extreme temperatures.
    1. Overcharging. In general, rechargeable lithium batteries are
significantly more susceptible than their Ni-Cd or lead-acid
counterparts to thermal runaway, which is an internal failure that can
result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure. This
is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and
destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation
(by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium
can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally,
the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with
increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in
large batteries.
    2. Over-discharging. Discharge of some types of rechargeable
lithium battery cells beyond the manufacturer's recommended
specification can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell,
resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by
recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple
voltage measurements commonly available to flight crews as a means of
checking battery status--a problem shared with Ni-Cd batteries. In
addition, over-discharging has the potential to lead to an unsafe
condition (creation of dendrites that could result in internal short
circuit during the recharging cycle).
    3. Flammability of Cell Components. Unlike Ni-Cd and lead-acid
batteries, some types of rechargeable lithium batteries use liquid
electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source
of fuel for an external fire, if there is a breach of the battery
container.
    4. Cell Internal Defects. The rechargeable lithium batteries and
rechargeable battery systems have a history of undetected cell internal
defects. These defects may or may not be detected during normal
operational evaluation, test, and validation. This may lead to an
unsafe condition during in-service operation.
    5. Extreme Temperatures. Exposure to an extreme temperature
environment has the potential to create major hazards. Care must be
taken to ensure that the lithium battery remains within the
manufacturer's recommended specification.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model P2012 airplane. Should Tecnam apply at a later date for a change
to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special
conditions to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Model P2012 airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704,
Pub. L. 113-53, 127 Stat 584 (49 U.S.C. 44704) note

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued, in lieu of
the requirements in Sec.  23.1353 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e),
amendment 23-62, as part of the type certification basis for the Tecnam
Model P2012 airplane.

Installation of Lithium Battery

    Lithium battery installations must be designed and installed as
follows:
    (1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained
during--
    i. Normal operations;
    ii. Any probable failure conditions of charging or discharging or
battery monitoring system; and
    iii. Any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system shown
to not be extremely remote.
    (2) The rechargeable lithium battery installation must be designed
to preclude explosion and fire in the event of a failure under (1)(ii)
and (1)(iii) above.
    (3) Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the
occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or
pressure.
    (4) No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any rechargeable
lithium battery in normal operation or as the result of any failure of
the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery
installation, which is shown to not be extremely remote, may accumulate
in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
    (5) Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the
requirements of Sec.  23.863(a) through (d), amendment 23-34.
    (6) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any
rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any
adjacent systems, equipment, electrical wiring, or the airplane in such
a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with Sec.  23.1309, amendment 23-62.
    (7) Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential
systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery
can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual
cells.
    (8) Rechargeable lithium battery installations must have a system
to automatically control the charging rate of the battery to prevent
battery overheating and overcharging, and either:
    i. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    ii. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.

    (9) Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of
which is required for safe operation of the aircraft, must incorporate
a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the
appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state of charge of the
batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of
the aircraft.

    Note 1 to paragraph (9): Reference Sec.  23.1353(h) for dispatch
consideration.

    (10) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) required by
Sec.  23.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to ensure that the
battery has been sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals
specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer
that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium
battery system. The lithium rechargeable batteries and lithium
rechargeable battery systems must not degrade below specified ampere-
hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system. The ICA must also
contain procedures for the maintenance of replacement batteries to
prevent the installation of batteries that have degraded charge
retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low
state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the same manufacturer
and part number as approved by the FAA.

    Note 2 to paragraph (10): Maintenance requirements include
procedures that check battery capacity, charge degradation at
manufacturer's recommended inspection intervals, and replace
batteries at manufacturer's recommended replacement schedule/time to
prevent age-related degradation.

    Note 3 to paragraph (10): The term ``sufficiently charged''
means that the battery must retain enough charge, expressed in
ampere-hours, to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged.
A battery cell may be damaged by low charge (i.e., below certain
level), resulting in a reduction in the ability to charge and retain
a full charge. This reduction would be greater than the reduction
that may result from normal operational degradation.

    Note 4 to paragraph (10): Replacement battery in spares storage
may be subject to prolonged storage at a low state of charge.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 22, 2019.
William Schinstock,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08477 Filed 4-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24889-24890]
[FR Doc No: E9-12143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 59933; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change to Reduce Fees for NASDAQ Basic Data
Feeds

May 15, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On March 27, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to reduce the fees for NASDAQ Basic, a real time
data feed combining both NASDAQ's Best Bid and Offer (``QBBO'') and the
NASDAQ Last Sale. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 14, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59712 (April 6,
2009), 74 FR 17273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NASDAQ Basic is a ``Level 1'' data product containing quotation
information from the NASDAQ Market Center and last sale data from the
NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ Basic was approved on March 16, 2009,\4\
as a pilot program and includes fees for usage and distribution of the
data. NASDAQ Basic is available in three forms, NASDAQ Basic for
NASDAQ, NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, and NASDAQ Basic for Alternext. NASDAQ
Basic is designed to meet the needs of current and prospective
subscribers that do not need or are unwilling to pay for the
consolidated data provided by the consolidated Level 1 products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59582 (March 16,
2009) 74 FR 12423 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102) (``Pilot
Approval Order'').

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

    NASDAQ assesses a monthly fee for distributors of NASDAQ Basic in
addition to applicable monthly per user fees. Currently, each
Distributor of NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ-listed stocks currently pays a
monthly fee of $1,500 for either internal or external distribution,
each Distributor of NASDAQ Basic for NYSE-listed stocks pays a monthly
fee of $250 for internal distribution or $625 for external
distribution, and each Distributor of NASDAQ Basic for Alternext-listed
stocks pays a monthly fee of $250 for internal distribution or $625 for
external distribution. In addition, each Distributor that receives
Direct Access to the NASDAQ Basic pays a monthly fee of $2,000 for
NASDAQ-listed stocks, $1,000 for NYSE-listed stocks, and $1,000 for
Alternext-listed stocks.
    NASDAQ proposes to reduce the distribution fees for NASDAQ Basic.
First, NASDAQ proposes to make all three feeds available for a single
monthly Distributor Fee of $1,500, rather than add separate fees for
NYSE- and Alternext-listed securities. Second, NASDAQ proposes to
eliminate the fee for Direct Access to NASDAQ Basic, currently set
forth in Rule 7047(b). Finally, NASDAQ proposes to credit each
Distributor of NASDAQ Basic up to $1,500 per month based upon that
Distributor's monthly usage fees. For example, a Distributor that
reports $1,500 or more of monthly usage of NASDAQ Basic will pay no net
Distributor Fee, whereas a Distributor that reports $1,000 of monthly
usage will pay a net of $500 for the Distributor Fee.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\ In
particular, it is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other parties using its facilities,
and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\9\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \10\ NASDAQ is an exclusive processor of NASDAQ Basic under
Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes information with respect to quotations or
transactions on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would reduce the distribution fees for NASDAQ Basic
by charging a single monthly Distributor Fee of $1,500 for all three
NASDAQ Basic feeds, eliminating the fee for Direct Access to NASDAQ
Basic, and providing a credit to each Distributor of NASDAQ Basic up to
$1,500 per month based upon that Distributor's monthly usage fees. The
Commission has reviewed the proposal using the approach set forth in
the NYSE Arca Order for non-core market data fees.\11\ The Commission
recently found that NASDAQ was subject to competitive forces in setting
fees for NASAQ Basic in the Pilot Approval Order.\12\ There are a
variety of alternative sources of information that impose significant
competitive pressures on NASDAQ in setting the terms for distributing
NASDAQ Basic. The Commission believes that the availability of those
alternatives, as well as NASDAQ's compelling need to attract order
flow, imposed significant competitive pressure on NASDAQ to act
equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the terms of its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Order''). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission describes the
competitive factors that apply to non-core market data products. The
Commission hereby incorporates by reference the data and analysis
from the NYSE Arca Order into this order.
    \12\ See Pilot Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NASDAQ was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that its terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder. An analysis of the proposal does not
provide such a basis.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-028), be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-12143 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P