[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 15533-15536]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59652; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-027)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Program for NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds
and To Reduce the Monthly Cap on Fees

March 30, 2009.
    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 25, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 is proposing to extend for three months the pilot that
created the NASDAQ Last Sale (``NLS'') market data products. NLS allows
data distributors to have access to real-time market data for a capped
fee, enabling those distributors to provide free access to the data to
millions of individual investors via the internet and television.
Specifically, NASDAQ offers the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ'' and
``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' data feeds containing last sale
activity in US equities within the NASDAQ Market Center and reported to
the jointly-operated FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/
NASDAQ TRF''). The purpose of this proposal is to extend the existing
pilot program for three months and to reduce the cap on applicable fees
as set forth below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Nasdaq will file a proposed rule change within thirty days
seeking permanenet [sic] approval oft [sic] the Nasdaq Last Sale
pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This pilot program supports the aspiration of Regulation NMS to
increase the availability of proprietary data by allowing market forces
to determine the amount of proprietary market data information that is
made available to the public and at what price. During the current
pilot period, the program has vastly increased the availability of
NASDAQ proprietary market data to individual investors. Based upon data
from NLS distributors, NASDAQ believes that since its launch in July
2008, the NLS data has been viewed by over 50,000,000 investors on
websites operated by Google, Interactive Data, and Dow Jones, among
others. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NASDAQ,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
nasdaq.complinet.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item III 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
    Prior to the launch of NLS, public investors that wished to view
market data to monitor their portfolios generally had two choices: (1)
Pay for real-time market data or (2) use free data that is 15 to 20
minutes delayed. To increase consumer choice, NASDAQ proposed a four-
month pilot to offer access to real-time market data to data
distributors for a capped fee, enabling those distributors to
disseminate the data via the internet and television at no cost to
millions of internet users and television viewers.
    NASDAQ now proposes a three-month extension of that pilot program
and to reduce the capped fee to $50,000 per month from $150,000 per
month.
    The NLS pilot created two separate ``Level 1'' products containing
last sale activity within the NASDAQ market and reported to the
jointly-operated FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. First, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for
NASDAQ Data Product,'' a real-time data feed that provides real-time
last sale information including execution price, volume, and time for
executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported
to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. Second, the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex
data product that provides real-time last sale information including
execution price, volume, and time for NYSE- and Amex-securities
executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported
to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF.
    NASDAQ established two different pricing models, one for clients
that are able to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or
quote counting mechanisms to account for usage, and a second for those
that are not. Firms with the ability to maintain username/password
entitlement systems

and/or quote counting mechanisms will be eligible for a specified fee
schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ Product and a separate fee
schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex Product: Firms that
were unable to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or
quote counting mechanisms will also have multiple options for
purchasing the NASDAQ Last Sale data. These firms chose between a
``Unique Visitor'' model for internet delivery or a ``Household'' model
for television delivery. Unique Visitor and Household populations must
be reported monthly and must be validated by a third-party vendor or
ratings agency approved by NASDAQ at NASDAQ's sole discretion. In
addition, to reflect the growing confluence between these media
outlets, NASDAQ offered a reduction in fees when a single distributor
distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via multiple distribution
mechanisms.
    Second, NASDAQ established cap of $100,000 per month for NASDAQ
Last Sale for NASDAQ and $50,000 per month for NASDAQ Last Sale for
NYSE/Amex, for a total of up to $150,000 per month. The purpose of this
proposal is to reduce the cap to $50,000 per month total for the NASDAQ
Last Sale for NASDAQ and for NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex. This
reduces the fee cap by $100,000 per month for vendors that purchased
both data feeds in quantities sufficient to hit the fee cap. This fee
reduction is necessary for Nasdaq to compete effectively against other
exchanges that also offer last sale data for purchase or at no charge.
    Finally, as with the distribution of other NASDAQ proprietary
products, all distributors of the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or
NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex products would pay a single $1500/month
NASDAQ Last Sale Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage
fees. The $1,500 monthly fee will apply to all distributors and will
not vary based on whether the distributor distributes the data
internally or externally or distributes the data via both the Internet
and television.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ as stated above, in that it provides an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of
NASDAQ data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f-3(b)(4) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ Last Sale market data products proposed here appear to
be precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded
that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in proprietary data--
would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and
competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether, proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    NASDAQ's ability to price its Last Sale Data Products is
constrained by (1) competition between exchanges and other trading
platforms that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (2)
the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and free
delayed consolidated data, and (3) the inherent contestability of the
market for proprietary last sale data.
    The market for proprietary last sale data products is currently
competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce
competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary
data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products
themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings,
trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless
opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute
their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each
individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously
competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including eleven self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as broker-dealers (``BDs'') and aggregators such as
the DirectEdge electronic communications network (``ECN''). Each SRO
market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions,
and an ever-increasing number of FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, and ECNs that currently produce
proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
TRF, ECN and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ECN or BD can combine with any other ECN, broker-dealer, or
multiple ECNs or BDs to produce jointly proprietary data products.
Additionally, non-broker-dealers such as order routers like LAVA, as
well as market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple broker-
dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources
of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ECNs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace writ
large.
    Consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing
discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the
consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is

widely available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional
users. Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a
15- or 20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only that data which will enable them to attract ``eyeballs''
that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers,
such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data
only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission
revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors'
pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any
proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ
and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and
respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in
order to successfully market proprietary data products.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, and BATS Trading. Today, BATS
publishes its data at no charge on its Web site in order to attract
order flow, and it uses market data revenue rebates from the resulting
executions to maintain low execution charges for its users. Several
ECNs have existed profitably for many years with a minimal share of
trading, including Bloomberg Tradebook and NexTrade.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, Reuters and Thomson. New entrants are already on the
horizon, including ``Project BOAT,'' a consortium of financial
institutions that is assembling a cooperative trade collection facility
in Europe. These institutions are active in the United States and could
rapidly and profitably export the Project Boat technology to exploit
the opportunities offered by Regulation NMS.
    In establishing the price for the NASDAQ Last Sale Products, NASDAQ
considered the competitiveness of the market for last sale data and all
of the implications of that competition. NASDAQ believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish a fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fee and an equitable allocation of fees among all users.

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

    NASDAQ 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, as amended. To the contrary,
the NASDAQ Last Sale Products respond to and enhance competition that
already exists in the market.
    On May 28, 2008, the internet portal Yahoo! announced that it would
offer its Web site viewers real-time last sale data provided by BATS
Trading. NASDAQ's last sale data products would compete directly with
the BATS product disseminated via Yahoo!. Since that time, BATS has
attracted additional purchasers of its last sale product that is free
of charge or, at least, has not been the subject of a proposed rule
change. [sic]
    In addition, as set forth above, the market for last sale data is
already competitive, with both real-time and delayed consolidated data
as well as the ability for innumerable entities begin rapidly and
inexpensively to offer competitive last sale data products. Moreover,
the New York Stock Exchange distributes competing last sale data
products and has reduced the price of its product. Under the
deregulatory regime of Regulation NMS, there is no limit to the number
of competing products that can be developed quickly and at low cost.
The Commission should not stand in the way of enhanced competition.

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

    Three comment letters were filed regarding the proposed rule change
as originally published for comment. NASDAQ responded to these comments
in a letter dated December 13, 2007. Both the comment letters and
NASDAQ's response are available on the SEC Web site at http://
www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2006-060/nasdaq2006060.shtml.

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-027 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-2009-027. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2009-027 and should be submitted on or before April 27, 2009.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, to extend the
pilot program for three months, is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\7\ In particular, it is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ 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,\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 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,\10\ 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,\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \12\ NASDAQ is an exclusive processor of its last sale data
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 data on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the fee for the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds
for a pilot period which runs until March 31, 2009.\13\ The Commission
notes that the Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program for three
months. The Commission did not receive any comments on the previous
extensions of the pilot program.\14\ In addition, the Exchange proposes
to reduce the fee cap applicable to the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds
from $100,000 per month for NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and $50,000 per
month for NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex to $50,000 per month total for
both feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57965 (June 16,
2008), 73 FR 35178 (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060); 58894
(October 31, 2008), 73 FR 66953 (November 12, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-
086); and 59186 (December 30, 2008), 74 FR 743 (January 7, 2009)
(SR-NASDAQ-2008-103).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 2, 2008, the Commission issued an approval order
(``Order'') that sets forth a market-based approach for analyzing
proposals by self-regulatory organizations to impose fees for ``non-
core'' market data products, such as the NASDAQ Last Sale Data
Feeds.\15\ The Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposal to
temporarily extend the pilot program is consistent with the Act for the
reasons noted in the Order.\16\ The Commission believes that approving
NASDAQ's proposal to temporarily extend the pilot program that imposes
a fee for the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds for an additional three
months and to reduce the cap applicable to the NASDAQ Last Sale Data
Feeds will be beneficial to investors and in the public interest, in
that it is intended to allow continued broad public dissemination of
increased real-time pricing information. The Commission notes that
price competition provided by other market data products were
considered by the Exchange in determining to reduce the fee cap for the
NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds. In addition, extending the pilot program
for an additional three months will allow NASDAQ, consistent with its
representation,\17\ to file within 30 days, the public to comment on,
and the Commission to analyze consistent with the Order and in light of
Section 19(b) of the Act, a proposal to permanently approve the fee for
NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (Order Setting Aside Action by
Delegated Authority and Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
NYSE Arca Data).
    \16\ See supra note 13.
    \17\ See supra note 3.
    \18\ The Exchange has represented that it will file a proposed
rule change within thirty days of filing of this proposal seeking
permanent approval of the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds pilot program.
See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change before the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice
of filing thereof in the Federal Register. Accelerating approval of
this proposal is expected to benefit investors by continuing to
facilitate their access to widespread, free, real-time pricing
information contained in the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds. In addition,
the Commission notes that the proposal should benefit vendors that make
real-time pricing information available by potentially reducing their
monthly fees. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent
with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\19\ to approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis to extend the operation of the pilot
until June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-027) is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis until June 30, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7586 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 46620-46622]
[DOCID:fr21au07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1.

August 15, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-48-009.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Powerex Corp. submits a notice of non-material change
status.
    Filed Date: August 13, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070814-0120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 04, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2330-047.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc. submits their Nineteenth
Standard Market Design Quarterly Status Report.
    Filed Date: June 11, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070614-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 29, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-705-002.
    Applicants: GSG, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: July 30, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070730-5052.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-970-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
responds to the July 27, 2007 deficiency letter.
    Filed Date: August 13, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070814-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 04, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1201-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits its executed
Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with
American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Filed Date: July 26, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 16, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1271-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits changes to Rate Schedule
92 and Rate Schedule 93, Power Purchase Agreement with Sierra Pacific
Power Company.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1272-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an executed large generator interconnection agreement with DTE
Pontiac North, LLC.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1273-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. on behalf of Entergy
Mississippi, Inc. submits the First Amendment to the Interconnection
Agreement with South Mississippi Electric Power. Association, as First
Revised Rate Schedule FERC 251.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1274-000.
    Applicants: TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC.
    Description: TransCanada Energy Marketing ULC submits a Notice of
Succession and Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1275-000.
    Applicants: New England Participating Transmission.
    Description: Participating Transmission Owners Administrative
Committee on behalf of New England's Participating Transmission Owners
submit revised tariff sheets to correct immaterial errors in
Implementation Rule for Attachment F.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1276-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp submits Service Agreement
1156 with Western New York Wind Corp.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1277-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc, acting as agent for Entergy
Operating Companies et al., submits a mutually-executed Dynamic
Transfer Operating Agreement with City of North Little Rock, AR.
    Filed Date: August 10, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070813-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 31, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1278-000.
    Applicants: Alpha Energy Master, Ltd.
    Description: Alpha Energy Master, Ltd submits a Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: August 13, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070814-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 04, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA07-17-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc. on behalf of Entergy Operating
Companies submits a compliance filing pursuant to FERC's July 13 Order.
    Filed Date: August 13, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070814-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 04, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: OA07-32-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc on behalf of Entergy Operating
Companies submits an amendment to its July 13, 2007 compliance filing
pursuant to Order 890.
    Filed Date: August 13, 2007.
    Accession Number: 20070814-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 04, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16422 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62111-62112]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25794]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65447; File No. SR-BX-2011-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Provide an
Optional Functionality for a BOX Options Participant To Prevent Its
Market Maker or Proprietary Broker-Dealer Orders Entered in BOX From
Trading With Quotes/Orders Originating From the Same BOX Participant
and Were Resting on the BOX Book

September 30, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on September 27, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule
change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter 5, Section 16 (Execution and
Price/Time Priority) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group,
LLC (``BOX'') to provide an optional functionality for a BOX Options
Participant to prevent its Market Maker or proprietary broker-dealer
orders entered on BOX from trading with Market Maker quotes and orders,
and proprietary broker-dealer orders that originated from the same BOX
Participant and were resting on the BOX Book.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to provide a voluntary function for a BOX
Options Participant to prevent its Market Maker or proprietary broker-
dealer orders entered on BOX from trading with quotes or orders that
originated from the same such BOX Options Participant and were resting
on the BOX Book. Under the proposal, a BOX Options Participant entering
Market Maker quotes or orders, or proprietary broker-dealer orders
under its specific BOX Options Participant identifier (``Firm ID'') may
voluntarily direct that its Market Maker or proprietary broker-dealer
orders entered on BOX not execute against Market Maker quotes or
orders, or proprietary broker-dealer orders resting on the BOX Book
that were entered under the same Firm ID.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Please note that this functionality prevents Market Maker
quotes and orders and proprietary orders entered under the same Firm
Id from executing against each other except where a Market Maker
quote is entered and there is already an order on the BOX Book, in
this instance, the trade would execute. BOX Market Makers may
simultaneously update all of their quotes in multiple series in a
class at the same time (``bulk quote''). BOX is not enabling this
Options Participant Trade Prevention functionality for a Market
Maker's incoming quotes so as to avoid the cancellation of numerous,
automatically submitted Market Maker bulk quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If requested in writing by a BOX Options Participant, BOX will
execute such incoming order against eligible trading interest of other
market participants, in price/time priority, up to the point where the
incoming Market Maker or proprietary broker-dealer order would interact
with a resting Market Maker quote or order, or proprietary broker-
dealer order originating from the same Firm ID and thereupon
immediately cancel any remaining portion of the incoming Market Maker
or proprietary broker-dealer order back to its entering party. The
direction from an Options Participant shall be effective at the
beginning of the trading session following the written confirmation to
the Participant of the BOX Market Operations Center's (``MOC'') receipt
of the Participant's written direction, and until the Participant
receives MOC's written confirmation of the Participant's written
direction to discontinue the effectiveness of the exception for such
Participant. The MOC will act on all Participant directions received to
enact or discontinue the Participant match trade prevention exception
no later than the beginning of the trading session on the second day
following MOC's receipt of the Participant direction. The MOC will,
however, turn this functionality on or off for a Participant only once
per day in response to a Participant's direction.
    This functionality is designed to assist market participants in
reducing execution fees potentially resulting from the interaction of
executable buy and sell proprietary trading interest from the same
firm. Additionally, BOX notes that offering this trade prevention
functionality may streamline certain regulatory functions for the
Exchange by reducing false positive results that may occur on wash
trading surveillance reports when quotes or orders are executed under
the same Firm ID. The proposed functionality applies to Market Maker
quotes and orders, and proprietary broker-dealer orders and cannot be
used for Public Customer orders. This functionality does not prevent
any Market Maker quote or order, or any proprietary broker-dealer order
from executing against any Public Customer order. Accordingly, Public
Customer orders will continue to be processed in price/time priority
and will not be affected by this functionality. For these reasons, BOX
believes this functionality offers its Options Participants enhanced
order processing functionality that may prevent potentially undesirable
executions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and

facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is
appropriate and reasonable because the functionality will assist BOX
Options Participants in reducing execution fees resulting from the
potential interaction of executable proprietary buy and sell trading
interest from the same firm. Additionally, the Exchange believes that
offering this trade prevention functionality may streamline certain
regulatory functions by reducing false positive results that may occur
on wash trading surveillance reports when quotes or orders are executed
under the same Firm ID. Further, the Exchange notes that similar
functionality has previously been approved for BATS Options trading
system, and exists on the Exchange's equities trading system.\7\
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit
BOX Options Participants, will allow BOX to remain competitive with
other exchanges, and that implementation should not be delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61419 (January 26,
2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031) and 60246
(July 6, 2009), 74 FR 34057 (July 14, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    This proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
paragraph (A) of section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\ The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule
change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors
or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest; provided the self-regulatory organization has given the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission notes that the Exchange satisfied this five-day pre-
filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-067 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-BX-2011-067. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of 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-BX-2011-067 and should be submitted on
or before October 27, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25794 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2526-2529]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1140; Special Conditions No. 25-711-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation, Model Falcon 7X Airplane;
Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable
lithium battery installations on the Dassault Aviation (Dassault) Model
Falcon 7X airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 18,
2018. Send your comments by March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1140
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 or 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://www.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 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: Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be
installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We
intend to require special conditions for certification projects
involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address
certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness
requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across
the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory
consistency.
    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an
application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design
feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-
rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always
immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus
of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become
virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes,
which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions.
Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each
design application is received could lead to costly certification
delays. Therefore, the FAA finds it necessary to issue special
conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular
makes and models of aircraft.
    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-
SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first
special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery
installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those
special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal
Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA
stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special
conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for
after this same date.
    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the
FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by
transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate
regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that
affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this
requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend
to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for
design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency
locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical
Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes
operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging
operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide
significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an
accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety
benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will
outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

    The substance of these special conditions previously has been
published in the Federal Register for public comment. These special
conditions have been derived without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would
result in a significant change from the substance contained herein.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists
for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal
Register.
    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 described above. 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 by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    Dassault holds type certificate no. A59NM, which provides the
certification basis for the Model Falcon 7X airplane. The Dassault
Model Falcon 7X airplane is a twin engine, transport category airplane
with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of
70,000 to 73,000 pounds, depending on the specific design.
    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable
lithium battery installations on the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane.
The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane
with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Dassault must show that the
Model Falcon 7X airplane meets the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in type certificate no. A59NM or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the
certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or
later amended sections that are not relevant to these special
conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model
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, or should any other model already
included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 7X 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.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-
rechargeable lithium batteries.
    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery
and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the
battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or
hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents
(where necessary) and packaging.

Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of
batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations
(CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that
established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification
basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently
in Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries
are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology
considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries
introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new
chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction.
Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure
modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for
thermal management.
    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium
batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these
energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events
involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated
failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to
the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov,
filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.
    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium
battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated
unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents
Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.
    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium
batteries on airplanes include:
     Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global
positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders,
underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics
computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication
management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;
     Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment,
including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides,
seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers
and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight
entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;
     Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors,
video surveillance equipment, and security systems.
    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-
rechargeable lithium batteries are:
     Internal failures: In general, these batteries are
significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in
self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal
runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The
metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or
explosion.
     Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an
imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an
overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting
condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.
     Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid
batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an
electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy
storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be
extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can
serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is
breached.
    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that
each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be
designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition
no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special
condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation
of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in
temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.
    Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the
non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to
eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain
number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control
of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are
intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.
    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid
fire protection requirements of Sec.  25.863 apply to non-rechargeable
lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of
the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from
airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an
electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.
    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium
battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent
systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases
that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe
failure condition.
    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases,
special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6
requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or
systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation
can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The
means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but
the requirements are independent and address different hazards.
    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium
battery installations in lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at
Amendment 25-123 or Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier
amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery
installations.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model
Falcon 7X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change
to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.
    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes
applied for after the effective date.
    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to
previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations
where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the
installation to improve the safety of

the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable
lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those
installations approved for certification projects applied for on or
before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic
change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function
or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special
conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified
non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a
change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The
FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because
the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter
these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain a novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or
Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-
rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures
under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and
explosion.
    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining,
uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.
    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or
as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities
within the airplane.
    4. Meet the requirements of Sec.  25.863.
    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment,
or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in
such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane
structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can
generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the
flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to
determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is
required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note: A battery system consists of the battery and any
protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or
outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and
packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a
``battery'' and ``battery system'' are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 9, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-00716 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 72747]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending Novermber 16, 2013. The
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2007-0066.
    Date Filed: November 12, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: December 3, 2013.
    Description: Application of Hainan Airlines Co., Ltd. requesting
the Department amend its foreign air carrier permit to enable it to
engage in scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Beijing, People's Republic of China (PEK), on the one hand, and
Boston, Massachusetts (BOS), on the other hand. Hainan Airlines also
requests exemption authority to the extent necessary so that it may
exercise the rights requested in this application prior to the issuance
of an amended foreign air carrier permit.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0197.
    Date Filed: November 14, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: December 5, 2013.
    Description: Application of Wow Air ehf requesting exemption
authority and a foreign air carrier permit to enable it to engage in
(a) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons,
property and mail between points behind Iceland, via Iceland and
intermediate points, and any point or points in the United States and
beyond; (b) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member
State of the European Union via any point or points in any Member State
and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States
and beyond; (c) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United
States and any point or points in any member of the European Common
Aviation Area; (d) foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of
cargo between any point or points in the United States and any other
point or points; (e) scheduled and charter transportation consistent
with any future, additional rights that may be granted to foreign air
carriers of the Member States of the European Community; and (f) other
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0200.
    Date Filed: November 14, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: December 5, 2013.
    Description: Application of Compagnie Aerienne Interregionale
Express (CAIRE) dba Air Guyane Express/Air Antilles Express requesting
a foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to engage in
scheduled and charter foreign air transportation of passengers, cargo
and mail to/from Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Martin to/from San
Juan, Puerto Rico.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-28876 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P