[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14387-14389]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05331]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 16, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0228; Notice No. 25-21-01-SC]

Special Conditions: Haeco Cabin Solutions, Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Model 737-800 Airplane; Structure-Mounted Airbags

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes (Boeing) Model 737-800 airplane. This airplane, as
modified by Haeco Cabin Solutions (Haeco), will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This
design feature is structure-mounted airbags designed to protect each
occupant from serious head injury in the event of an emergency landing.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed
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: Send comments on or before April 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-0228 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: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing
each substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this Notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this Notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments
will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Send
submissions containing CBI to John Shelden, Human Machine Interface,
AIR-626, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    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: John Shelden, Human Machine Interface,
AIR-626, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the notice and public comment procedure in several
prior instances. Additionally, a delay in design approval would
significantly affect the applicant's installation of the system on the
airplane. Therefore, the FAA is shortening the public comment period to
30 days.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites 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.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On September 1, 2020, Haeco applied for a supplemental type
certificate for structure-mounted airbags in the Boeing Model 737-800
airplane. The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, which is a derivative of
the Boeing Model 737 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate
No. A16WE, is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane with seating
for 189 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 174,200 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Haeco must show that the Boeing Model 737-800 airplane, as
changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. A16WE or the applicable regulations in
effect on the date of application for the

change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-800 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 model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate 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 Boeing Model 737-800 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 Features

    The Boeing Model 737-800 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    Airbags mounted to structure to prevent head injury.

Discussion

    Haeco proposes to install structure-mounted airbags instead of
inflatable lap belts as a means to protect each occupant from serious
injury in the event of an emergency landing, as required by Sec.
25.562(c)(5), on 737-800 airplanes.
    Such use of airbags to provide injury protection for the occupant
is a novel or unusual feature for this airplane model, and the
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate airworthiness standards for these design features.
Therefore, special conditions are needed to address requirements
particular to installation of airbags in this manner.
    Special conditions exist for airbags installed on seat belts, known
as inflatable lap belts, which have been installed on transport
airplane passenger seats. Structure-mounted airbags, although a novel
design, were first introduced on Jetstream Aircraft Limited Model 4100
series airplanes, which resulted in issuance of Special Conditions 25-
ANM-127 on May 14, 1997. These special conditions supplemented 14 CFR
part 25 and, more specifically, Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785.
    The structure-mounted airbag, similar to the inflatable lap belt,
is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an
emergency landing. These airbags will reduce the potential for serious
injury, including reducing the head-injury criterion measurement
defined in part 25. However, structure-mounted airbags function
similarly as automotive airbags, where the airbag deploys from
furniture located in front of the passenger, relative to the airplane's
direction of flight, forming a barrier between the structure and
occupant. Also, unlike the inflatable lap belt, the structure-mounted
airbag does not move with the occupant. To account for out-of-position
and brace-position occupants, the airbag is designed to conform to the
curvature of the exposed structure in the head-strike zone.
    Because the airbag system is essentially a single-use device, it
could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently so severe
as to require the injury protection the airbag system provides. Because
an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before
the airplane comes to rest, a larger impact following the initial
impact could render the airbag system unavailable. This potential
situation does not exist with standard upper-torso restraints, which
tend to provide continuous protection regardless of impact severity, or
number of impacts, in a crash event. Therefore, the airbag system
installation should be such that it provides protection, when it is
required, by not expending its protection when it is not required. If
the airbag deployment threshold is unnecessarily low, the airbag would
need to continue to provide protection when an impact requiring
protection occurs.
    These proposed special conditions are based upon Special Conditions
25-605-SC for the Boeing Model 787-9 airplanes equipped with B/E
Aerospace Super-Diamond model business-class passenger seats and
associated furniture. Additionally, the special conditions address
protection of the occupant's neck and spine for the structure-mounted
airbag deployment. When using the HIC15 head-injury method for airbag
impacts (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) the neck and
spine limits are included as part of the allowance. These additional
conditions are based on special conditions issued previously on oblique
seats. The proposed 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

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 737-800 airplane as modified by Haeco. Should Haeco apply
at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other
model included on Type Certificate No. A16WE to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these
features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes, as modified by Haeco Cabin
Solutions:
    1. The applicant must demonstrate by test that the structure-
mounted airbag will deploy and provide protection under crash
conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury to a 50th
percentile occupant, as specified in Sec.  25.562. The means of
protection must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption for
a range of occupants, from a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile
male. In addition, the following situations should be considered:
     The seat occupant is holding an infant.
     The seat occupant is a child in a child restraint device.
     The seat occupant is a child not using a child restraint
device.
     The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.

a. Head-Injury Criteria

    Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the
ATD has no apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact
with an airbag, a head-

injury criterion (HIC) unlimited score in excess of 1000 is acceptable,
provided the HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208)
for that contact is less than 700.

b. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact

    If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., an interior wall or
furnishing) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the
expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis or
tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met
for the area that an occupant could contact. For example, if different
yaw angles could result in different airbag performance, then
additional analysis or separate tests may be necessary to evaluate
performance.

c. Neck-Injury Criteria

    The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. The assessment of neck injury must be conducted
with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to also
consider that the neck-injury potential would be higher for impacts
below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    (1) The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

(a) Fzc = 1,530 lb for tension
(b) Fzc = 1,385 lb for compression
(c) Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
(d) Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    (2) In addition, peak Fz must be below 937 lb in tension
and 899 lb in compression.
    (3) Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the
torso, is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    (4) The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.

d. ATD and Test Conditions

    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609, ``A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid III ATD for
Aircraft Seat Tests.'' The tests must be conducted with an undeformed
floor, at the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral
structural supports (e.g. armrests or walls) installed.
    Note: Applicant must demonstrate that the installation of seats via
plinths or pallets meets all applicable requirements. Compliance with
the guidance contained in policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-00123,
``Guidance for Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for
Plinths and Pallets,'' dated February 2, 2000, is acceptable to the
FAA.
    2. The structure-mounted airbag must provide adequate protection
for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat
assembly.
    3. The structure-mounted airbag system must not be susceptible to
inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard
landings) likely to be experienced in service.
    4. The applicant must demonstrate that an inadvertent deployment
that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable.
Inadvertent deployment must not cause injury to anyone who may be
positioned close to the structure-mounted airbag (e.g., seated in an
adjacent seat, or standing adjacent to the airbag installation or the
subject seat). Cases where a structure-mounted airbag is inadvertently
deployed near a seated occupant or an empty seat must be considered.
    5. Inadvertent deployment of the structure-mounted airbag during
the most critical part of flight will either not cause a hazard to the
airplane or is extremely improbable.
    6. Deployment of the structure-mounted airbag must not introduce
hazards or injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, including
occupants in the brace position. Deployment of the structure-mounted
airbag must also not result in injuries that could impede rapid exit
from the airplane.
    7. Effects of the deflection and deformation of the structure to
which the airbag is attached must be taken into account when evaluating
deployment and location of the inflated airbag. The effect of loads
imposed by airbag deployment, or stowed components where applicable,
must also be taken into account.
    8. The applicant must demonstrate that the structure-mounted
airbag, when deployed, does not impair access to the seatbelt- or
harness-release means, and must not hinder evacuation. This will
include consideration of adjacent seat places and the aisle.
    9. The airbag, once deployed, must not adversely affect the
emergency-lighting system, and must not block escape-path lighting to
the extent that the light(s) no longer meet their intended function.
    10. The structure-mounted airbag must not impede occupants' rapid
exit from the airplane 10 seconds after its deployment.
    11. Where structure-mounted airbag systems are installed in or
close to passenger evacuation routes (other than for the passenger seat
for which the airbag is installed), possibility of impact on emergency
evacuation (e.g., hanging in the aisle, potential trip hazard, etc.)
must be evaluated.
    12. The airbag electronic system must be designed to be protected
from lightning per Sec.  25.1316(b), and high-intensity radiated fields
per Sec.  25.1317(c).
    13. The structure-mounted airbag system must not contain or release
hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
    14. The structure-mounted airbag installation must be protected
from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    15. The inflatable bag material must meet the 2.5-inches-per-minute
horizontal flammability test defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F,
part I, paragraph (a)(1)(iv).
    16. The design of the structure-mounted airbag system must protect
the mechanisms and controls from external contamination associated with
that which could occur on or around passenger seating.
    17. The structure-mounted airbag system must have a means to verify
the integrity of the structure-mounted airbag activation system.
    18. The applicant must provide installation limitations to ensure
installation compatibility between the seat design and opposing
monument or structure.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 10, 2021.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05331 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, March 15, 2021 11:26 AM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
allowable rationale

Hi. I wanted to send an explanation of our rationale for the procedure used for calculating allowables, in case there was a question about this.

The risk assessment of allowables emissions is a check on the standard rather than the facility. It is a check of the standard using real and current industry operation, which the current industry facilities provide.

If there is no standard, then allowables equals actuals, regardless of the operation level of the facility, i.e., regardless of capacity vs actual level of operation, and regardless of the "potential to emit."

See the risk assessment in 2005 for subpart L as well as the integrated iron and steel RTR in 2020 (subpart FFFFF) for examples of this practice.

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/national-emission-standards-hazardous-air-pollutants-neshap-9

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:33 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: COMMENTS? -- coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hi, Donna Lee.  Thanks for being patient with us on this.

Rest assured that our top priority at the moment is responding to you on the questions/comments you sent us this week.  We're working our way through all of them as quickly as we can.

We plan to respond to you by next Wednesday (March 17) on most of them, including those that pertain to "PQBS category source file" issue nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and "Non-category source file" issue no. 3.  On the remaining questions/comments, which pertain to files we had not seen until this week (i.e., "PQBS category source file" issue no. 2 and "Non-category source file" issue nos. 1 and 2), we are still working our way through them and do not have a definitive date for you yet.

Please contact me if you have questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org


National Water Quality Assessment Program January 21, 2003 Purpose: : Since 1991, USGS scientists with the NAWQA program have been collecting and analyzing data and information in more than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the Nation. The goal is to develop long term consistent and comparable information on streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and policy decisions. The NAWQA program is designed to answer these questions:

1. What is the condition of our Nation's streams and ground water? 2. How are these conditions changing over time? 3. How do natural features and human activities affect these conditions?

Chemicals: The assessment includes 500 chemical constituents.

Sample Locations: NAWQA study units are major river basins and aquifers across the Nation. A study unit boundary frequently crosses state boundaries and usually encompasses more than 10,000 square kilometers ( about 3,900 square miles). Study units are the building blocks of NAWQA and form the basis for national synthesis assessments. How were study units selected? Geographic areas were selected to represent a variety of important hydrologic and ecological resources; critical sources of contaminants, including agricultural, urban, and natural sources; and a high percentage of population served by municipal water supply and irrigated agriculture. What is the scope of study unit investigations? Studies are long term and cyclical. One third of all study units are intensively investigated at any given time for 3 4 years, followed by low intensity monitoring. Trends are assessed about every 10 years. 1991  2001 ( 51 study units) The first cycle of intensive investigations began with 20 study units in fiscal year 1991; investigations of additional study units began in 1994, 1997, and 1999. 2001  2012 ( 42 study units) The second cycle of intensive investigations began in 2001 in 14 study units that were intensively assessed during the first cycle from 1991 95. Investigations will begin in 14 more study units in 2004 and in another 14 in 2007.

Sample Design: The U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) began its NAWQA ( National Water Quality Assessment) program in 1991, systematically collecting chemical, biological, and physical water quality data from study units ( basins) across the nation. The data warehouse currently contains and links the following data up through 9/ 30/ 2001: Chemical concentrations in water, bed sediment, and aquatic organism tissues for about 500 chemical constituents Site, basin, well and network characteristics with many descriptive variables Daily stream flow information for fixed sampling sites Ground water levels for sampled wells 4,100 surface water sites and 6,500 wells 46,000 nutrient samples and 31,000 pesticide samples as well as 9,600 VOC samples 3,200 samples of bed sediment and aquatic organism tissues .

Time period Covered: The program began in 1991 and is envisioned to continue in 10 blocks until at least 2012.

Evaluation Method: The National Synthesis Team will publish reports on national water quality using information obtained from the study units. The Nutrients and Pesticides report is available now. Reports for voc's, aquatic ecology and trace elements are planned. There are summary reports available for the individual study units as well.

Results: There is a NAWQA data warehouse available online. It allows the user to search by location or chemical of interest.

Short Term Followup: Look at the individual and national summary reports for usefulness.

Long Term Followup: Can the data warehouse be cross referenced to other databases?


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26715-26717]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12320]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83368; File No. SR-MRX-2018-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and
Reorganize Specific Chapters in the Schedule of Fees

June 4, 2018.
    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 May 22, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend and reorganize Chapters II, IV, V,
and VI of the MRX Schedule of Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapters II, IV, V, and VI of the
MRX Schedule of Fees to: (i) Eliminate the Table of Contents; (ii)
remove the INET Port Fees from Chapter II, Part B; (iii) adopt a new
Chapter IV, entitled ``Ports and Other Services'' and amend and
reorganize the current port fees; (iv) adopt a new Chapter V, entitled
``Market Data'' and list all the market data feeds; and (v) renumber
Chapter IV, entitled ``Connectivity Fees.'' Each change will be
described in more detail below. The Exchange believes that the proposed
amendments to the Schedule of Fees will provide more clarity as to the
current fees. The Exchange notes that no fee changes are being
introduced in this rule change. The Exchange is simply reorganizing its
rules to conform to other Nasdaq affiliate markets by aligning the
location and description of its rules on each market.
Table of Contents
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Table of Contents in the MRX
Schedule of Fees. The Table of Contents are unnecessary. The website
where the MRX rules are listed \3\ contains hyperlinks and a skeleton
of the available rules within the site and enables market participants
to view all rules in that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MRX rules are located at: http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

INET Port Fees
    The Exchange currently lists all INET Port Fees within Chapter II,
Part C. The Exchange proposes to delete this rule text and relocate it
to proposed new Chapter IV and entitle that chapter as ``Ports and
Other Services.'' The Exchange believes that this title more accurately
describes the types of fees contained in this chapter. The Exchange
proposes to restructure the port fees. First, the Exchange proposes to
add language at the beginning of this new chapter to state, ``The below
charges are assessed by MRX for connectivity to MRX.'' The Exchange
believes that this sentence makes clear that the fees apply to MRX. The
Exchange proposes to define a port as ``a logical connection or session
that enables a market participant to send inbound messages and/or
receive outbound messages from the Exchange using various communication
protocols.'' The Exchange believes this definition will assist members
in distinguishing ports from other offerings.
    The Exchange proposes to restructure the port fees into 4
categories. The Exchange proposes to list order and quote protocols
first, order and execution offerings next, followed by data ports and
other ports as the last section. The Exchange proposes to list data
offerings that are offered at no cost. The Exchange believes that
aligning its offerings, where relevant, with other affiliated markets
\4\ will provide more transparency as to the offerings for market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange offers various services across its 6 affiliated
options markets, MRX, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., The Nasdaq
Options Market LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq
Affiliated Markets'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (i) and include the
following introductory sentence, ``The following order and quote
protocols are available on MRX.'' The Exchange proposes to list the
order entry protocol port fees for FIX, SQF, SQF Purge Port and OTTO in
this section. The fees are not being amended, the existing fees are
being relocated into new section (i).
    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (ii) and include the
following introductory sentence, ``The following order and execution
information is available to Members.'' The Exchange intends to list
other port or interface information into this section that are
available to MRX Members. The Exchange is relocating the CTI and FIX
DROP port fees. No changes are being made to those fees. The Exchange
also proposes to list TradeInfo MRX Interface into this section. The
Exchange has recently filed to establish this Interface within the MRX
rules.\5\ The Exchange proposes to note this interface is available on
MRX at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-MRX-2018-16 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iii) and include the
following language, ``The following data port fees apply in connection
with data subscriptions pursuant to MRX Rules at Chapter V. These ports
are available to non-MRX Members and MRX Members.'' Today, MRX does not
assess a fee for these ports outlined in new section (iii). Similar to
other Nasdaq Affiliated Markets the Exchange proposes to list all of
the ports that Members and Non-Members obtain today at no cost. The
Exchange believes that listing these ports in addition to the data
subscriptions will bring more transparency to the Schedule of Fees.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new section (iv) entitled ``Other
ports'' and relocate the Disaster Recovery Ports into this section. The
Exchange also proposes to make clear that a Disaster Recovery Port is
available for any port listed in proposed sections (i)-(iii).
Market Data
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Chapter V and entitle this
section Market Data. Today, MRX does not assess fees for Market Data.
The

Exchange proposes to list its Market Data within Chapter V and note
that there is no cost. The Exchange's Market Data fees are listed in
Rule 718. The Exchange has listed these feeds within Chapter V to bring
more transparency to the Schedule of Fees. Finally, the Exchange
proposes to renumber Chapter IV, Connectivity Fees as new Chapter VI to
account for the two new chapters proposed for the Rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by
providing greater transparency as to the ports offered on MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove the Table of Contents, relocate
the INET Fees, retitle and restructure those fees and adopt a new
Market Data section at Chapter V are administrative. These changes are
consistent with the protection of investor and the public interest
because the amendments are intended to bring greater clarity to the
Rulebook. The Exchange's proposal to reorganize the port fees into
sections and include pricing for ports that are offered at no cost is
also consistent with the protection of investor and the public interest
because it will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's current
offerings. The Exchange's proposal to display the various market data
within newly proposed Chapter V will also bring greater transparency to
the Exchange's current offerings.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's
proposal does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather the
Exchange is seeking to provide greater transparency within its rules
with respect to the various ports and market data offered on MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become effective and operative immediately upon filing.
The Exchange states that it believes the waiver will further the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will provide
greater transparency as to various ports available to market
participants. The Exchange further states that the proposed rule change
will bring greater clarity to the Schedule of Fees. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit

personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-17 and should be
submitted on or before June 29, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12320 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P