[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40805-40808]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17634]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83823; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Fees Under Rules 7014(e) and 7018(a)

August 10, 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 August 1, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's fees at Rule 7014(e)
to apply additional criteria required to qualify for a fee of $0.0029
per share executed, and to amend Rule 7018(a) to assess no fees for
Midpoint Extended Life Orders \3\ in securities of all three Tapes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 4702(b)(14).
    \4\ Tape C securities are those that are listed on the Exchange,
Tape A securities are those that are listed on NYSE, and Tape B
securities are those that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq
or NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
fees at Rule 7014(e), concerning Qualified Market Makers (``QMMs''),\5\
to apply additional criteria required to qualify for a fee of $0.0029
per share executed, and to amend Rule 7018(a), concerning the fees and
credits provided for the use of the order execution and routing
services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members for all securities
priced at $1 or more that it trades, to assess no fees for Midpoint
Extended Life Orders in securities of all three Tapes. Rule 7014(e)
provides the fees and rebates applicable to QMMs. Rule 7018(a)(1) sets
forth the fees and credits for the execution and routing of orders in
Nasdaq-listed securities (Tape C); Rule 7018(a)(2) sets forth the fees
and credits for the execution and routing of securities listed on the
New York Stock Exchange LLC (Tape A); and Rule 7018(a)(3) sets forth
the fees and credits for the execution and routing of securities listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE (Tape B). The Exchange is
proposing to assess no fee for all Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To be designated a QMM, a member must meet the following
criteria: (1) The member is not assessed any ``Excess Order Fee''
under Rule 7018 during the month; (2) the member quotes at the NBBO
at least 25% of the time during regular market hours in an average
of at least 1,000 securities per day during the month; and (3) the
member is a registered Nasdaq market maker. See Rule 7014(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    Under Rule 7014(e), the Exchange charges a QMM $0.0030 per share
executed for removing liquidity in Nasdaq-listed securities priced at
$1 or more, and $0.00295 per share executed for removing liquidity in
securities priced at $1 or more per share listed on

exchanges other than Nasdaq, if the QMM's volume of liquidity added
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month
(as a percentage of Consolidated Volume \6\) is not less than 0.85%.
The Exchange assesses a charge of $0.0029 per share executed for
removing liquidity in securities priced at $1 or more per share listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq if the QMM has a combined Consolidated
Volume (adding and removing liquidity) of at least 3.7%, and the QMM
also meets the QMM Tier 2 qualification criteria. The QMM Tier 2
qualification criteria requires a QMM to execute shares of liquidity
provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during
the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Consolidated Volume is the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of a member's trading activity the date of the annual
reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be excluded
from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading
activity. See Rule 7018(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to require a QMM to have MOC/LOC volume
greater than 0.25% of Consolidated Volume in addition to having
combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity)
requirement to at least 3.7%, to qualify for the $0.0029 per share
executed fee. Market on Close (MOC) \7\ and Limit on Close (LOC) \8\
Orders are designated to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross. This
additional criteria is reflective of the Exchange's desire to provide
incentives to attract order flow to the Exchange in securities listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq in return for significant market-
improving behavior. In this case, the Exchange is promoting
participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross by QMMs by requiring MOC/LOC
volume above 0.25% of Consolidated Volume. The addition of a modest
level of Nasdaq Closing Cross participation to the qualification
criteria will help ensure that QMMs are providing significant market-
improving behavior in return for the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``Market On Close Order'' or ``MOC Order'' is an Order
Type entered without a price that may be executed only during the
Nasdaq Closing Cross. See Rule 4702(b)(11).
    \8\ A ``Limit On Close Order'' or ``LOC Order'' is an Order Type
entered with a price that may be executed only in the Nasdaq Closing
Cross, and only if the price determined by the Nasdaq Closing Cross
is equal to or better than the price at which the LOC Order was
entered. See Rule 4702(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Change
    The purpose of the second proposed rule change is to amend the
Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018(a)(1)-(3) to charge no fee for
execution of Midpoint Extended Life Orders in securities priced $1 or
more. The Midpoint Extended Life Order is an Order Type with a Non-
Display Order Attribute that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO
and that will not be eligible to execute until the Holding Period of
one half of a second has passed after acceptance of the Order by the
System.\9\ Once a Midpoint Extended Life Order becomes eligible to
execute by existing unchanged for the Holding Period, the Order may
only execute against other eligible Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 4702(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rules 7018(a)(1)-(3) the Exchange provides credits to, and
assesses fees on, members for execution of displayed quotes/orders
(other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) if they
qualify by meeting the requirements of the various credit and fee tiers
under those rules. The Exchange historically had not assessed a fee for
the execution of any Midpoint Extended Life Order, but in July 2018 it
began to assess a fee of $0.0006 per share executed for executions in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders.\10\ The Exchange, however, continued to
not assess a fee for the execution of Midpoint Extended Life Orders if
the member executed at least at least 250,000 shares in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders in June 2018. The Exchange is now proposing to
assess no charge for any execution \11\ of a Midpoint Extended Life
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83522 (June 26,
2018), 83 FR 30998 (July 2, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-047).
    \11\ Transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders below $1 will
remain at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Change
    The Exchange believes that the $0.0029 per share executed charge
for removing liquidity in securities priced at $1 or more per share
listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq will continue to be reasonable
because the fee will remain unchanged. When the Exchange adopted the
fee,\14\ it believed that assessing the fee was reasonable because it
was set at a level that is lower than the standard removal fee of
$0.0030 per share executed, thereby providing an incentive to market
participants, and it was also based on the Exchange's analysis of the
cost to the Exchange of offering a lower fee, thereby decreasing the
revenue derived from transactions by members that qualify for the fee,
and the desired benefit to the market provided by the members that meet
the fee's qualification criteria. The Exchange noted that the fee's
qualification criteria provided an incentive to members to increase
their participation in the market as measured by Consolidated Volume,
which benefits all market participants. The Exchange also noted that
members may qualify for a $0.00295 per share executed fee for removing
liquidity in Tape A or B securities priced at $1 or more if the
member's volume of liquidity added through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs during the month (as a percentage of Consolidated
Volume) is not less than 0.80%, which was subsequently increased to
0.85%. The Exchange explained that the proposed fee would continue to
require a member to both qualify under the Tier 2 criteria that
requires the member to execute shares of liquidity provided in all
securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that
represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month, and also
provide an increased combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing
liquidity) requirement (which was at least 3.5%, but subsequently
increased to at least 3.7%). Consequently, the Exchange noted that to
qualify for a lower transaction fee for removing liquidity in Tape A or
B securities under the QMM Program, the member must both provide
greater Consolidated Volume through adding liquidity during the month
(i.e., 0.90% versus 0.80%) and provide a certain level of combined
Consolidated Volume, which accounts for both adding liquidity and
removing liquidity. As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to
change the fee and the analysis described above remains valid.

Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fee remains reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78977 (September
29, 2016), 81 FR 69140 (October 5, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the fee will continue to be an equitable
allocation and not unfairly discriminatory with the new MOC and LOC
criteria because it is reflective of the success that the lower charge
tier has had in promoting beneficial market participation, as measured
by combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity).
Consequently, the Exchange believes that requiring QMMs to provide
additional beneficial market participation through the execution of MOC
and LOC Orders in the Nasdaq Closing Cross is warranted. The Exchange
does not believe that the new requirement will result in a significant
reduction in the number of QMMs that will likely qualify for the lower
transaction fee. Moreover, the Exchange is not limiting which QMMs may
qualify for the reduced charge. As noted, the QMM Program is intended
to encourage members to promote price discovery and market quality by
quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in a large
number of securities, thereby benefitting Nasdaq and other investors by
committing capital to support the execution of orders. To receive the
$0.0029 per share executed charge, a member must meet the Tier 2
criteria, which requires the QMM to execute shares of liquidity
provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
Center MPIDs that represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during
the month. In addition, the QMM must provide a certain level of
combined Consolidated Volume, which accounts for both adding liquidity
and removing liquidity. The Exchange is proposing to add new criteria
designed to promote participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross to make
the qualification criteria required to receive the incentive more
meaningful in terms of the beneficial market activity required to
receive the reduced charge. QMMs may continue to qualify for the
reduced charge while also providing more beneficial market
participation. In this regard, any QMM may choose to provide the level
of MOC and/or LOC Orders required to be eligible for the fee. Thus, the
Exchange does not believe that the new criteria discriminates unfairly
and believes that it is equitably allocated.
Second Change
    The Exchange believes that allowing transactions of Midpoint
Extended Life Orders at no cost is reasonable because it currently
offers them at no cost, as described above. In addition, the Exchange
does not charge a fee for transactions in Orders with a RTFY routing
Order Attribute.\15\ Such an Order must meet the definition of
Designated Retail Order, which requires, among other things, that the
Order not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology.\16\ Thus, allowing transactions of the RTFY Order
Attribute at no cost is designed to promote the Exchange as a venue for
retail investor Orders. Likewise, the Exchange is proposing to allow
all transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders at no cost to promote
use of such Orders and consequently the quality of the market in
Midpoint Extended Life Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ RTFY is a routing option available for an order that
qualifies as a Designated Retail Order under which orders check the
System for available shares only if so instructed by the entering
firm and are thereafter routed to destinations on the System routing
table. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they are posted to
the book. Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked
or crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center. RTFY is designed to
allow orders to participate in the opening, reopening and closing
process of the primary listing market for a security. See Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(v)b.
    \16\ See Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that not charging a fee for executions in
Midpoint Extended Life Order is an equitable allocation and is not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to
all similarly situated members. The Midpoint Extended Life Order may be
used by any market participant that is willing to satisfy the
requirements of the Order Type and therefore qualify for the proposed
zero fee tiers. Moreover, members not interested in using Midpoint
Extended Life Orders will continue to have the ability to enter
midpoint Orders in the Nasdaq System, which have both fees and credits
associated with their execution.\17\ The Exchange will likely assess
fees again for transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders in the
near future, once it has had time to further assess the nature of the
market in Midpoint Extended Life Orders to determine the appropriate
fee. Accordingly, the proposed fee does not discriminate in any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Based on whether the member is removing or adding
liquidity. See Rule 7018(a) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
this instance, the proposed rule change does not impose a burden on
competition because the Exchange's execution services are completely
voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other
exchanges and from off-exchange venues.
    With respect to the first proposed change, although the change to
the QMM qualification criteria may limit the benefits of the program to
the extent QMMs that currently qualify for the $0.0029 per share
executed charge are unable to meet the more stringent qualification
criteria, the incentive is reflective of the need for exchanges to
offer significant financial incentives to attract order flow in return
for meaningful market-improving behavior. The Exchange, however, does
not believe that the proposed qualification criteria will negatively
impact who will qualify for the $0.0029 per share executed charge but
will rather have a positive impact on overall market quality as QMMs
increase their participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross to qualify for
the lower charge. If, however, the Exchange is incorrect and the
changes proposed herein are unattractive to QMMs, it is likely that
Nasdaq will lose market share as a result.
    With respect to the second proposed change, assessing no fee for
executions of Midpoint Extended Life Orders will not place any burden
on competition, but rather will help continue to attract interest in
the use of the Order Type by making it attractive to members that seek
to execute at the midpoint with like-minded members. To the extent the
proposal is successful in promoting liquidity in Midpoint Extended Life
Orders, other markets may be incented to provide a competitive response
by innovating like the Exchange has done in this instance. To the
extent the proposal is not successful in promoting liquidity in
Midpoint Extended Life

Orders, it would have no meaningful impact on competition as few
transactions in Midpoint Extended Life Orders would occur. In sum, if
the proposal to assess no fees for executions of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will not gain any market share as a result and therefore no
competitive impact.
    Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-064 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-064. 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 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-064, and should be submitted
on or before September 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17634 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54572-54574]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0666; Notice No. 25-566-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Isolation or Airplane Electronic System
Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier
Aerospace Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These
airplanes will have novel or unusual design features, specifically,
digital systems architecture composed of several connected data
networks that will have the capability to allow connectivity of the
passenger service computer systems to the airplane critical systems and
data networks. 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: The effective date of these special conditions is September 12,
2014. We must receive your comments by October 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0666
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 Web site, 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), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as ``CSeries''). The
CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy
fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated
as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes
meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by
Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.
    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 CSeries airplanes 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 type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    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.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CSeries will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected
data networks. This network architecture and configuration may be used
for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:
     Flight safety related control, communication, and
navigation systems (aircraft control domain);
     Operation and administrative support (operator information
services domain); and
     Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger
entertainment domain), and will have the capability to allow access to
or by external network sources.

Discussion

    The CSeries digital systems network architecture is different from
existing production (and retrofitted) airplanes as it allows new kinds
of user access to previously isolated data networks connected to
systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the
airplane. This proposed data network design and integration may result
in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional
corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance
of the airplane.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of system architectures or access to airplane systems.
Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment
policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities
that could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and
servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that
the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not
compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between
airplane data busses and networks.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model No. BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11. Should Bombardier Aerospace
apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include
another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has 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, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments
to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
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

0
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 Bombardier BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A1
series airplanes.

Isolation or Airplane Electronic System Security Protection From
Unauthorized Internal Access

    1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation
from, or airplane electronic system security protection against, access
by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must
prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts
upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required
for safe flight and operations.
    2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post type certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 3, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21788 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67676]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0814; FRL-9219-6]

Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories; State of Nevada; Clark County
Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990, EPA is proposing to grant delegation of specific national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to Clark
County, Nevada.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0814, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal concerns the delegation of
unchanged NESHAP to Clark County, Nevada. In the Rules and Regulations
section of this Federal Register, EPA is amending regulations to
reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Nevada. EPA is
taking direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency
believes this action is not controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based on
this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on
an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision
may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of Section
112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

    Dated: October 5, 2010.
Deborah Jordan,
Director, Air Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-27804 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67337-67339]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0139]

Entry-Level Driver Training: United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS);
Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny United Parcel Service,
Inc.'s (UPS) application for exemption from two provisions in the
entry-level driver training (ELDT) final rule published on December 8,
2016. UPS requests a five-year exemption from the following provisions
in the ELDT final rule: The requirement that a driver training
instructor hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and have two years'
experience driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV), as set forth in
the definitions of ``behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor'' and ``theory
instructor;'' and the requirement to register each training location in
order to obtain a unique Training Provider Registry (TPR) number
applicable to that location. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption
application and the public comments and determined that the applicant
has not demonstrated that it would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent the requested exemptions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0139 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments
submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The
Agency's decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must specify the effective period (up to 5 years)
and explain its terms and conditions. The exemption may be renewed (49
CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) seeks an exemption from the
following

two provisions in the entry-level driver training (ELDT) final rule:
(1) The requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that a driver training instructor
hold a commercial driver's license (CDL) and have two years' experience
driving a CMV, as set forth in the definitions of ``behind-the-wheel
(BTW) instructor'' and ``theory instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605; and (2)
the requirement in 49 CFR 380.703(a)(7) that training providers with
multiple training locations must register each training location in
order to receive a unique Training Provider Registry (TPR) number
applicable to that location.
    UPS states that its driver training school (DTS) trains its
employees to become driver instructors. Their DTS instructors have, on
average, 20 years of UPS experience, hold a CDL of the same or higher
class, and have all endorsements necessary to operate a CMV for which
training is provided; have completed the DTS instructor certification
program; have maintained their DTS certification through quarterly
additional training; and are employed by UPS as supervisors or
managers. The DTS conducts an 8-week program designed to train
supervisors and managers in UPS' long-haul operations to deliver driver
training to drivers at UPS worksites. All UPS driver instructors must
recertify every 90 days to demonstrate the same skill level shown for
their original DTS certification.
    UPS states that, were it to comply with these instructor
qualification requirements, it would not be able to use at least 25% of
its current certified driver instructors, because they do not have the
requisite two years of CMV driving experience. According to UPS, in the
next two years that number would likely increase to 50% due to its
changing workforce. UPS expects an increase in growth through volume
demand, as well as an aging workforce that will lead to retiring CDL
drivers and certified driver instructors. Without an exemption from the
ELDT instructor requirements, UPS's inability to use its current driver
instructors will impede substantially its ability to meet the demand
for new drivers. UPS adds that the exemption is needed to meet
contractual requirements, as under its collective bargaining agreement
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters), six
current UPS employees must be provided with a promotion opportunity for
every new hire.
    Secondly, UPS requests an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR
380.703(a)(7), that training providers with multiple training locations
must register each training location to receive a unique TPR number
applicable to that location. UPS states that new driver training may
occur at as many as 1,800 separate locations a year. In each location,
instructors who have been trained pursuant to UPS' DTS program will use
a common FMCSR-compliant curriculum developed at a corporate level.
UPS's Director of Driver Training is responsible for UPS's firm-wide
training program, and UPS is operating a single training program in
multiple locations. UPS states that this exemption is necessary due to
the significant administrative burden that would result if it had to
register every UPS location at which a new driver could be trained.
Having separate TPR numbers for multiple locations offering essentially
the same training could create internal confusion for UPS, drivers, and
the Agency. UPS estimates that the cost to register these locations
would be ``substantial'' and that it would incur additional costs to
keep track of the various registrations, file updates, and new driver
registrations.

IV. Public Comments

    On June 19, 2019, FMCSA published notice of the UPS application for
exemption and requested public comment [84 FR 28623]. The Agency
received 112 comments, 58 supporting the exemptions and 51 opposing
them. Three other commenters had no position either for or against the
application and provided no substantive comments. Four organizations
opposed the exemptions: The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA); the Commercial Vehicle Training Association
(CVTA); Trucker Nation; and the United States Transportation Alliance.
    OOIDA strongly opposed both portions of the UPS request, stating
that ``the ELDT rule sets forth a process for registering training
providers that will hold schools and instructors accountable for their
performance. If these standards are maintained and enforced, highway
safety will unquestionably improve. OOIDA further opposed exempting UPS
from the requirement to separately register each training location for
a unique TPR number, commenting: ``The Agency also saw no rationale
under which motor carrier-operated training schools should be permitted
to opt out of the TPR registration requirements based on their size or
safety record.''
    CVTA does not believe that UPS should be exempted from the current
two-year instructor requirements, nor does it believe that the company
should be exempted from registering each individual location where it
provides training. While CVTA agrees that the skills needed to
effectively teach, versus the skills acquired by driving for two years,
are different, they believe the regulation should be uniformly followed
by anyone training pre-CDL students. It is CVTA's belief that, by
granting the exemptions, the FMCSA would be setting a bad precedent,
and opening the floodgates for exemption requests from other training
providers.
    TruckerNation also opposed both portions of the exemption request,
stating that the concerns raised by UPS have been addressed through
negotiated rulemaking and the public comment process. TruckerNation
asserted that approving this exemption request would contradict the
sound decisions previously made in the ELDT final rule and ultimately
undermine the goals of ELDT.
    Fifty-eight individuals supported the UPS application. Most
supported only the first part of the exemption request--i.e., the
requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that a driver training instructor hold a
CDL and have two years' CMV driving experience and, as set forth in the
definitions of BTW instructor and theory instructor in 49 CFR 380.605.
Most of these commenters cited the excellence of the UPS training
program and the company's overall safety record. Many commenters also
noted that UPS requires continuous instructor recertification
throughout the year, regardless of how long they have held a CDL.

V. Method To Ensure an Equivalent Level of Safety

    UPS states that its ``train the trainer'' program within its DTS
will assure an equivalent level of safety. According to UPS, its DTS
produces highly skilled instructors who know how to drive tractor-
trailers and how to teach others to operate tractor-trailers in a safe
manner. UPS believes that graduates of its DTS training program are
better prepared to impart knowledge and skills to new drivers than
someone who has had two years of CMV driving experience. According to
UPS, experience over time has shown that their instructors produce
expertly trained, safe entry-level drivers. All DTS certified driver
instructors are re-certified every 90 days and UPS conducts periodic
(minimum annual) internal quality assessments of the DTS program. As to
the training provider registration requirements, UPS assures that the
registration requirements will be fulfilled by a single registration
for UPS' driver training program, managed by UPS, if the exemption were
granted.

    In support of UPS's request for exemption from the requirement to
register each training location separately, the company cites the
uniformity of its driver instructor training and the fact that ``a
common FMCSR-compliant curriculum has been developed at the corporate
level.'' On that basis, UPS concludes that the objectives of location-
specific registration would be satisfied by a single UPS registration.

VI. FMCSA Response and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated the UPS application and the public comments
submitted and hereby denies the requested exemptions. The UPS
application does not provide an analysis of the safety impacts the
requested exemptions from the ELDT regulations may cause, as required
by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(4), and does not explain how the exemptions would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulations,
as required by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5).
    The requirement that a driver training instructor hold a CDL, and
have either two years' experience driving a CMV of the same or higher
class, or two years' experience as a BTW CMV instructor, is necessary
to establish a sufficient minimum qualification standard for BTW
instructors. In the Agency's judgment, the rigorous instructor training
provided by UPS, while laudable, is not a substitute for CMV driving
experience. UPS therefore fails to provide an alternative to the
instructor requirements likely to ensure an equivalent level of safety,
and the request for exemption is hereby denied.
    The Agency also denies UPS's request for an exemption from the
requirement, as set forth in 49 CFR 380.703(a)(7), that training
providers with more than one campus or training location must
electronically register each training location to receive a unique TPR
number applicable to that location. Qualified training providers are a
cornerstone of meaningful ELDT. FMCSA's ability to readily identify the
separate physical locations at which ELDT occurs is a reasonable
prerequisite to effective oversight of UPS's training operations. The
Agency needs to know the training location where an individual received
ELDT, for example, so that if State-administered skills or knowledge
test pass/fail rates appear to be outside the norm for drivers trained
at a specific location, FMCSA can follow-up appropriately. In addition,
UPS did not explain how a single UPS representative can be directly
responsible for managing and administering ELDT at all 1,800 locations.
It is reasonable to require that the individual actually administering
the ELDT program at a given location attest, under penalty of perjury,
to compliance with specific training requirements. Further, UPS does
not indicate whether the same type of ELDT is conducted at each of its
1,800 locations--e.g., do some locations offer only BTW training or
only knowledge training? Is specialized knowledge training, such as on
hazardous materials, offered at every UPS training location? The types
of ELDT offered at each training location is ``key information'' as
defined in 380.719(a)(3)(i), and is necessary for effective regulatory
oversight. For example, the extent of training offered at a specific
location may impact how FMCSA allocates its audit or investigation
resources. UPS's application does not explain how dispensing with the
location-specific TPR registration requirement would likely achieve an
equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the UPS request for exemption
from the TPR registration requirement is hereby denied.

    Issued on: November 26, 2019.
Jim Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-26183 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Comments from OMB

6/12/07

Please comment in Chapter 5 about how increase in coal energy output for
the East is consistent with known control on EGU trading.  Also, please
comment on how table 5.5 is consistent with your statements about
Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use.  It would seem that table 5.5 would suggest this
rule is “…significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
use…” when coupled with the known controls for EGU.

Discussion has been added to reflect the CAIR process.  Because this is
only an illustrative analysis, and does not proscribe how states will
implement a proposed standard, EO 13211 does not apply.

Table 4.1:  include results for all regions.

	Numbers were not calculated for all regions.

Section 4.1.2:

Please provide discussion of why you selected a 200 km radius.  Please
discuss how the extrapolated tons would change if you assumed a smaller
radius; i.e., if the number of areas increased.  Please discuss how the
200 km radius is affected by state borders.  Please discuss how the 200
km radius is affected by natural boundaries (Great Lakes, Rocky
Mountains, Oceans, etc).  Please add note that states a sensitivity
analysis of alternative assumptions regarding the 200 km radius will be
conducted in the final RIA.

Further discussion has been added about the 200 km radius and its
appropriateness.

Section 4.2:

Please provide discussion of how higher/lower impact ratios will affect
the resulting extrapolated tons estimate. Please provide discussion that
regional specific impact ratios would likely be more appropriate to use.

	Discussion has been added.

Please provide a statement that notes that regionally disaggregated
impact ratios will be conducted for the final RIA.

	Methodology for the final RIA is still under consideration.


[Federal Register: May 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 21701-21702]
[DOCID:fr08my09-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0325]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC). This Committee
advises the Coast Guard on matters related to the training,
qualification, licensing, certification, and fitness of seamen serving
in the U.S. merchant marine.

DATES: Completed application forms should reach us on or before July
15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing to Mr. Mark
Gould, Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for MERPAC, at
Commandant (CG-5221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. Please submit applications to the same
address. Also, a copy of the application form, as well as this notice,
is available in our online docket, USCG-2009-0325, at http://
www.regulations.gov. Send your completed application, along with a
personal resume, to the Assistant DFO at the street address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gould, Assistant to DFO of
MERPAC; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MERPAC is a Federal advisory committee
established by authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act under 5
U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). MERPAC advises the Assistant Commandant
for Prevention on matters of concern to seamen serving in our merchant
marine, such as implementation of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978 (STCW), as amended.
    MERPAC normally meets twice a year, once at or near Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington, DC, and once elsewhere in the country. It may
also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees and working
groups may also meet to consider specific tasks as required.
    We will consider applications for seven positions that expire or
become vacant on January 31, 2010. To be eligible, you should have
experience in the following areas of expertise: marine education in
training institutions other than State or Federal maritime academies;
maritime education in State maritime academies (2 vacancies); licensed
engineering officer with either a limited chief engineer or a
designated duty engineer endorsement and who represents a labor point
of view; licensed deck officer who has an endorsement for vessels of
any gross tonnage upon oceans and who also has tanker experience;
unlicensed member of the engine department; and one person who
represents the general public. Each member serves for a term of three
years. Members may serve consecutive terms if re-appointed. Members
serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, they
do receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply.
    If you are selected as a member who represents the general public,
you will be appointed and serve as a special Government employee (SGE)
as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a
candidate for appointment as a SGE, applicants are required to complete
a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). A completed
OGE Form 450 is not releasable to the public except under an order
issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy
Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO)
or the DAEO's designate may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of MERPAC,
send a completed application, along with a personal resume, to Mr. Mark
Gould, Assistant to the DFO of MERPAC, at the address above. Send the
application in time for it to be received by the DFO on or before July
15, 2009.
    A copy of the application form is available in the docket for this
notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2009-0325) in the Search
box, and click ``Go.''

    Dated: May 1, 2009.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-10750 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21074-21076]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61921; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 903
Commentary .06

April 15, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on April 12, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903 Commentary .06 to permit
the concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that
participate in both the $0.50 Strike and $1 Strike Programs. The text
of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form.
A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at http:/
/www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office 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 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 IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 903 Commentary .06 to
permit the concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that
participate in both the $0.50 Strike and $1 Strike Programs.
    The Exchange recently implemented a rule change that permits strike
price intervals of $0.50 for options on stocks trading at or below
$3.00 (``$0.50 Strike Program'').\5\ As part of the filing to establish
the $0.50 Strike Program, the Exchange contemplated that a class may be
selected to participate in both the

$0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 60720 (September 25, 2009) 74
FR 51205 (October 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the $1 Strike Program, new series with $1 intervals are not
permitted to be listed within $0.50 of an existing $2.50 strike price
in the same series, except that strike prices of $2 and $3 are
permitted to be listed within $0.50 of a $2.50 strike price for classes
also selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike Program. Under NYSE
Amex's existing rule, for classes selected to participate in both the
$0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program, the Exchange may
either: (a) List a $3.50 strike but not list a $4 strike; or (b) list a
$4 strike but not list a $3.50 strike. For example, under the
Exchange's current rules, if a $3.50 strike for an option class in both
the $0.50 and $1 Strike Programs was listed, the next highest
permissible strike price would be $5.00. Alternatively, if a $4 strike
was listed, the next lowest permissible strike price would be $3.00.
The intent of the $.50 Strike Program was to expand the ability of
investors to hedge risks associated with stocks trading at or under $3
and to provide finer intervals of $0.50, beginning at $1 up to $3.50.
As a result, the Exchange believes that the current filing is
consistent with the purpose of the $0.50 Strike Program and will permit
the Exchange to fill in any existing gaps resulting from having to
choose whether to list a $3.50 or $4 strike for options classes in both
the $0.50 and $1 Strike Programs.
    Therefore, the Exchange is submitting the current filing to permit
the listing of concurrent $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that are
selected to participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1
Strike Program. To effect this change, the Exchange is proposing to add
$4 to the strike prices of $2 and $3 currently permitted if a class
participates in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike
Program.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend the current rule text to
delete references to ``$2.50 strike prices'' (and the example utilizing
$2.50 strike prices) and to replace those references with broader
language, e.g., ``existing strike prices.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \6\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to 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 permitting the Exchange to list
more granular strikes on options overlying lower priced securities,
which the Exchange believes will provide investors with greater
flexibility by allowing them to establish positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 that is 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder. The Exchange provided the Commission with
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 the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay to permit the Exchange to list series available on
other exchanges. The Commission finds that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because such waiver will enable the Exchange to compete with
other exchanges whose rules permit concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4
strikes for classes similarly participating in both a $0.50 strike
program and a $1 strike program. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 may summarily abrogate 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-NYSEAmex-2010-38 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-NYSEAmex-2010-38. 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,\11\ 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 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-NYSEAmex-2010-38 and should
be submitted on or before May 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9278 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 63480]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22237]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9952-51-Region 6]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of
New Mexico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of New Mexico is
revising its approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program.
New Mexico has adopted the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) by
reference under <IP_ADDRESS> of the New Mexico Administrative Code and
Regulations Pertaining to Public Water Systems. EPA has determined that
the RTCR primacy application submitted by New Mexico is no less
stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA
intends to approve this PWSS program revision package.

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by October 17, 2016 to the
Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 6 address shown below.
Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the
Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public
hearing is made by October 17, 2016, a public hearing will be held. If
no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own
motion, this determination shall become final and effective on October
17, 2016. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement
of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and a brief statement of the information that the
requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature
of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on
behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following offices: New Mexico Environment
Department, Drinking Water Bureau, Harold Runnels Building, 190 St.
Francis Dr., Suite S2120, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505; and United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-
SD), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. Copies of the
documents which explain the rule can also be obtained at EPA's Web site
at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/13/2012-31205/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-revisions-to-the-total-coliform-rule and https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/26/2014-04173/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-minor-corrections-to-the-revisions-to-the-total-coliform, or by writing or
calling Ms. Evelyn Rosborough at the address below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Evelyn
Rosborough, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6,
1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: September 2, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-22237 Filed 9-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32599-32601]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13018]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72283; File No. SR-DTC-2014-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Receiver
Authorized Delivery and Reclaim Processing Value Limits by Transaction

May 30, 2014
    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, 2014, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by DTC. 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 proposed rule change consists of changes to the DTC Settlement
Service Guide (the ``Guide'') \3\ to modify the Receiver Authorized
Delivery (``RAD'') functionality as more fully described below to
reduce the intraday uncertainty that may arise from reclaim
transactions linked to Deliver Orders (``DOs'') and Payment Orders
(``POs'') \4\ and any potential credit and liquidity risk from such
reclaims.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Guide is available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/
Downloads/legal/service-guides/Settlement.ashx.
    \4\ A DO is a book-entry movement of a particular security
between two DTC Participants. A PO is a method for settling funds
related to transactions and payments not associated with a DO. For
purposes of this proposed rule change the defined term ``DOs''
includes all valued DOs except for DOs of: (i) Money Market
Instruments and (ii) Institutional Deliveries affirmed through
Omego, both of which are not impacted by the proposed rule change.
    \5\ Terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in DTC's
Rules & Procedures (the ``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC 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
    By this rule filing, DTC seeks to modify the RAD functionality to
reduce the intraday uncertainty that may arise from reclaim
transactions linked to DOs and POs and any potential credit and
liquidity risk from such reclaims, as more fully described below.
    Currently, as set forth in the DTC Settlement Service Guide (the
``Guide''), all valued DOs and POs in amounts above $7.5 million and
$500,000, respectively, are subject to the RAD process, which allows a
receiver of DOs and/or POs (``Receiver'') to review and reject
transactions that it does not recognize prior to DTC's processing of
the transactions in accordance with the Rules. In contrast, lower
valued DOs and POs do not require the Receiver's acceptance prior to
processing; instead, if the Receiver does not recognize a DO or PO it
has received, the DO or PO may be returned by the Receiver to the
original deliverer of the DO or PO (``Deliverer'') in a reclaim
transaction. While both the reclaim and RAD functionalities allow a
Receiver to exercise control over which transactions to accept,
reclaims tend to create uncertainty because transactions may be
returned late in the day, when the Deliverer may have limited options
to respond. Because such reclaims are permitted without regard to risk
management controls, the Deliverer may then incur a greater settlement
obligation, increasing credit and liquidity risk to the Deliverer and
to DTC.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DTC's risk management controls, including Collateral Monitor
and Net Debit Cap (as defined in DTC Rule 1), are designed so that
DTC can effect system-wide settlement notwithstanding the failure to
settle of its largest Participant or affiliated family of
Participants. Net Debit Cap limits the net debit balance a
Participant can incur so that the unpaid settlement obligation of
the Participant, if any, cannot exceed DTC liquidity resources. The
Collateral Monitor tests that a Receiver has adequate collateral to
secure the amount of its net debit balance so that DTC may borrow
funds to cover that amount for system-wide settlement if the
Participant defaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, pre-settlement matching of transactions through RAD
without the ability of the Receiver to reclaim those transactions is
the preferred approach as this would eliminate the uncertainty and
credit and liquidity implications associated with reclaims. In 2013,
DTC took an initial step to address this uncertainty by lowering the
RAD ``threshold'' over which transactions must be matched for DOs and
POs from $15 million and $1 million, respectively, to the current
limits mentioned above.\7\ Under the proposed rule change, DTC would
further change RAD to require Participants to match valued DOs and POs,
prior to processing the associated deliveries. These matched
transactions would be processed through DTC subject to risk management
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69985 (Jul. 12, 2013);
78 FR 42991 (Jul. 18, 2013) (SR-DTC-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, under the proposed rule change, each return of a matched
DO or PO attempted to be made by a Receiver to the Deliverer would no
longer be processed as a reclaim, but rather would be treated as an
original instruction that

would be subject to risk management controls and matching via RAD.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would revise the Guide to
reflect that: (i) with respect to valued DOs, DTC would lower the
above-described RAD threshold to $.01 via a three-stage reduction as
set forth below, and (ii) with respect to POs, DTC would reduce the RAD
threshold to zero immediately upon implementation of the proposed rule
change.\8\ In this regard, upon implementation of the rule change DTC
would initially reduce the RAD threshold for DOs to $100,000. In the
second increment the RAD threshold for valued DOs would be reduced to
$20,000. In the third increment the RAD threshold for DOs would be
reduced to $.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As noted in footnote 4 above, Institutional Deliveries
affirmed through Omgeo are not impacted by the proposed rule change.
Such Institutional Deliveries are subject to matching via RAD only
if a Participant makes an election in this regard. When applied, the
RAD threshold for these Institutional Deliveries is $15 million. DTC
plans to lower the RAD limit for Institutional Transactions to $.01
as part of a future proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to further promote finality of settlement, the Guide
would be revised to remove the provision that New Issues are exempt
from RAD.
    Also, the Guide would be updated to reflect that certain related
functions would no longer be accessible through the Participant
Terminal System (PTS). Any such functions would instead be accessible
through a DTC Web application known as ``Settlement Web.'' Further, the
Guide would be clarified via a technical change to specifically state
that the RAD threshold for Institutional Transactions remains at $15
million, rather than at the $7.5 million amount currently in effect for
non-institutional transactions. Finally, the Guide would be revised to
remove a provision that overvalued deliveries are automatically routed
to RAD as this section would become redundant upon implementation of
the proposed rule change since all DOs would be subject to RAD.

Implementation

    The effective date of the proposed rule change, including the
implementation dates of the incremental reductions described above
would be announced via a DTC Important Notice.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of taking into account the incremental
implementation of the proposed rule change as described above,
beginning on an implementation date that shall be announced via DTC
Important Notice (the ``Initial Implementation Date'') DTC would
lower the RAD limit for non-institutional DOs to $100,000 and POs to
zero. From a date that is approximately 2 weeks following the
Initial Implementation Date and that shall be announced by Important
Notice, until a date that is approximately 6 weeks following the
Initial Implementation Date and that shall be announced by Important
Notice, DTC would lower the RAD limit for non-institutional DOs to
$20,000. From a date that is approximately 6 weeks following the
Initial Implementation Date and that shall be announced by Important
Notice, DTC would lower the RAD limit for non-institutional DOs to
$.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change would facilitate intra-day finalization of
securities and payment deliveries in DTC's system by increasing the
number of DOs and POs required to be approved by the Receiver via RAD
prior to DTC processing, and removing the possibility that those
matched deliveries could be returned to the Deliverer via a reclaim. As
such, the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \10\ of the Act which requires that the rules of
the clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. In
addition, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(12) of the Act \11\ which requires that a clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that final settlement occurs
no later than the end of the settlement day and requires that intraday
or real-time finality be provided where necessary to reduce risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    All Participants would be subject to the proposed change, and
therefore DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have
any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received with respect to this filing.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-DTC-2014-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2014-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's
Web site at http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2014-

06 and should be submitted on or before June 26, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13018 Filed 6-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


F 1 Phase I Phase II Parameter Control Strategy Implementation Mechanism Date Monitoring Control Strategy nutrients water level management Allocation for Oregon Fresh Farms MOA with MCDD Permit for Oregon Fresh Farms Annual review of flow management options and effectiveness continuous and grab samples TMDL review as scheduled 2003/ 2004 New MOAs 2004/ 2005 pH water level management MOA with MCDD April 1999 continuous and grab samples Dissolved Oxygen set allocations for de icing discharge attain compliance with deicing allocation Implement BMPs to reduce storm water BOD load PDX de icing permit MOA with DMAs Lower Willamette Subbasin Plan Summer 1998 Winter 2005/ 2006 April 1999 Spring 1999 continuous and grab samples PDX new permit 2004 bacteria ( E. Coli) CSO removal Identify and connect to sewer direct discharges to Slough Identify and remove illegal discharges Implement controls to reduce agricultural bacteria load Develop bacteria management plan MOAs with DMAs Storm water permit Lower Willamette Subbasin Plan December 2000 April 1999 August 1999 Spring 1999 March 1999 grab samples determine compliance F 2 Phase I Phase II Parameter Control Strategy Implementation Mechanism Date Monitoring Control Strategy Pb Implement BMPs to reduce Pb load to the Slough BMP monitoring Monitor contribution of ECSI sites Expand list of industrial categories covered by storm water permit Assure compliance with storm water permit by industrial facilities Monitor contribution of ECSI sites Allocations for ECSI sites MOAs with DMAs Storm water permit Statement of work for Cleanup April 1999 August 1999 April 1999 synoptic datasets of storm water and instream ( as specified in MOA)

Source monitoring calibrate model of storm water loads of Pb,

reevaluate Pb allocations Estimate contribution from ECSI sites Re evaluate ECSI allocation Review and update TMDL ( 2003/ 2004)

organics Implement BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation into Slough Monitor effectiveness of BMPs Monitor contribution of ECSI sites Allocations for ECSI sites Remediate contaminated sediment in Buffalo Slough MOAs with DMAs Storm water permit City of Portland pilot project for organics BMPs Statement of Work for Cleanup April 1999 As defined in MOA As defined in MOAs Develop relationship between TSS, TOC and organics Estimate contribution from ECSI sites Re evaluate ECSI allocation Review and update TMDL ( 2003/ 2004)

temperature Model criteria and scenario selection Model runs done LC, LA, WLA identified MOAs Temperature management plan MOAs April 1999 grab continuous Review and update TMDL ( 2003/ 2004) F 3