[Federal Register: March 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14604-14607]
[DOCID:fr31mr09-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59615; File No. SR-BX-2009-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish New Fees for Services
Available to Members and Non-Members

March 20, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On January 14, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt fees applicable to members and non-
members in connection with its cash equities trading business. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 4, 2009.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comment
letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59307 (January 28,
2009), 74 FR 6069 (SR-BX-2009-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Pursuant to SR-BSE-2008-48, the Exchange adopted a new rulebook
with rules governing membership, the regulatory obligations of members,
listing, and equities trading.\4\ The new rules, which are designated
as the ``Equity Rules,'' are substantially based on the rules of The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``NASDAQ Exchange''). Through this
proposal, the Exchange seeks to establish non-member and member fees
for its cash equities trading business.\5\ The Exchange states that the
proposed fee schedule is similar to the NASDAQ Exchange but differs in
that it omits several fees that are not pertinent to the Exchange's
business and differs in the level of certain fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23,
2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48).
    \5\ The Exchange previously adopted fees applicable solely to
its members. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59337 (February
2, 2009), 74 FR 6441 (February 9, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Market Data

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for its BX TotalView data
product. Like NASDAQ TotalView, BX TotalView will provide all displayed
quotes and orders in the market, with attribution to the relevant
market participant, at every price level, as well as total displayed
anonymous interest at every price level. In recognition of the start-up
nature of the new market, the data feed will be provided free of charge
to subscribers and distributors for the first year of operation.
    After the initial free period, subscribers to BX TotalView will pay
a monthly charge of $20; however, new subscribers receiving BX
TotalView for the first time after the expiration of the one-year
introductory period will be able to use the product free of charge for
an individual 30-day trial period.\6\ Distributors of BX TotalView will
pay a $1,000 monthly fee to receive the data directly from the
Exchange, since the Exchange incurs costs to support the connection to
each direct distributor; indirect distributors (i.e., those receiving
data from a direct distributor) would not pay this charge.\7\
Distributors will also pay a $500 monthly fee to distribute the data
feed internally (i.e., to employees) and a $1,250 monthly fee to
distribute to external customers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed Equity Rule 7023.
    \7\ See proposed Equity Rule 7019.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the foregoing fees will be waived during the initial free
period.
    Upon approval of this filing, however, the Exchange will begin to
assess a limited number of fees in connection with data provision.
Specifically, extranet providers that connect to the Exchange to
provide direct access connectivity to market data will be charged a
monthly access fee of $750 for each technical configuration used to
provide a connection to a recipient's site.\9\ In addition, data
distributors will

pay an annual administrative fee of $500 for delayed distribution of
data, and $1,000 for real-time distribution.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Equity Rule 7025.
    \10\ See proposed Equity Rule 7035. These annual administrative
fees can be waived for colleges and universities receiving the data
for research and educational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is establishing the foregoing fee structure to be
similar to the structure for NASDAQ TotalView, but at lower overall
levels than fees for NASDAQ TotalView. The Exchange states that the
lower fee levels reflect the start-up nature of the Exchange's new
equities trading platform, and will help to promote competition among
exchanges with respect to the quoting and trading services.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the fees it sets for BX
TotalView will help to attract order flow to the Exchange. At
inception, the Exchange will have zero market share. The Exchange
believes that it must set its fees, including data fees, with a view to
attracting order flow to increase market share. The Exchange states
that due to the existence of alternatives for market participants to
determine market depth--such as other depth of book products that may
be associated with markets with more liquidity, or order routing
strategies designed to ascertain market depth--the Exchange has
incentives to ensure that its fees for BX TotalView are set reasonably.
    The Exchange believes that proposed fee structure for BX TotalView
is not unreasonably discriminatory, since the fees for subscribers are
uniform for all subscribers, and the fees for distributors are uniform
except with respect to reasonable distinctions between internal and
external distribution and direct and indirect receipt of data. The
Exchange also believes that the fees are fair and reasonable in that
they compare favorably to fees charged by other exchanges for
comparable products.

B. Port Fees

    In order to receive BX TotalView, subscribers must establish
connectivity to the Exchange through extranets, direct connection, and
Internet-based virtual private networks. The Exchange proposes to
charge fees for the ports required to establish these connections, just
as it will charge for access ports used to enter orders into the
market.\11\ A port used for order entry cannot also be used to receive
data; thus, a member seeking to enter orders and receive data would
require at least two port pairs. Prior to approval of this filing, the
Exchange will provide data ports free of charge. Thereafter, the
Exchange will generally charge the same fees for data ports that it
charges for order entry ports: $400 per month per port pair, plus an
additional $200 per month for each Internet port that requires
additional bandwidth due to the demands of the particular subscriber.
In addition, subscribers wishing to obtain data will also have the
option of obtaining a Multicast ITCH[supreg] port pair at a fee of
$1000 per month.\12\ The differences between these two options relate
to speed and processes for verifying completeness of the data. The
standard port pair option provides one copy of the data and uses
procedures under which the system receiving the data communicates back
to the Exchange to verify completeness of the information. Under the
Multicast ITCH option, two copies of the data are provided without
these verification processes, and consequently at a higher rate of
speed. Because the recipient of the data receives two copies, it can,
if it wishes, undertake its own verification by programming its systems
to compare the two copies. The fees for data ports are identical to the
comparable fees charged by the NASDAQ Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59337 (February 2,
2009), 74 FR 6441 (February 9, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-004) (establishing
Equity Rule 7015 to charge fees for ports used by members to enter
orders).
    \12\ Equity Rule 7015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Testing

    The Exchange proposes to establish fees for its testing facility,
to be set at levels identical to the fees for the NASDAQ Exchange's
testing facility.\13\ In general, the Exchange will charge $285 per
hour for an active connection during the facility's normal operating
hours and $333 per hour for an active connection at other times.
Because the fees are waived for testing of new, enhanced, or modified
services and/or software offered by the Exchange, as well as for
modifications initiated by the Exchange and for a 30-day period for new
subscribers to existing services, the testing fees will not be charged
until the later of (i) approval of this filing, or (ii) 30 days after
the launch of the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System. Thereafter, as
provided in the rule, the fees will be waived for a 30-day period for
each new market participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Equity Rule 7030(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Fees

    Other fee rules relate to special data requests \14\ and partial
month charges \15\ and are comparable to corresponding NASDAQ Exchange
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Equity Rule 7030(b). This provision allows the
Exchange to recoup costs associated with responding to ad hoc
requests for market data, such as requests that may be made by news
reporters or academic researchers.
    \15\ See proposed Equity Rule 7031. This provision provides that
market data distributors may elect to be billed on a prorated basis
during the month of initiation or termination of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\16\ In particular, it is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other parties using its facilities, and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\18\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\20\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \21\ BX is an exclusive processor of BX depth-of-book data under
Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes information with respect to quotations or
transactions on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.

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

A. BX Market Data & Port Fees

    The Commission has reviewed the proposal using the approach set
forth in the NYSE Arca Order for non-core market data fees.\22\ In the
NYSE Arca Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance
on competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to
assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\23\ It noted that the ``existence of significant competition provides
a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \24\ If an exchange ``was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of a proposal,''
the Commission will approve a proposal unless it determines that
``there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Exchange Act
or the rules thereunder.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Order''). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission describes in
great detail the competitive factors that apply to non-core market
data products. The Commission hereby incorporates by reference the
data and analysis from the NYSE Arca Order into this order.
    \23\ Id. at 74771.
    \24\ Id. at 74782.
    \25\ Id. at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NYSE Arca Order, the standards in Section 6 of the
Act and Rule 603 of Regulation NMS do not differentiate between types
of data and therefore apply to exchange proposals to distribute both
core data and non-core data. Core data is the best-priced quotations
and comprehensive last-sale reports of all markets that the Commission,
pursuant to Rule 603(b), requires a central processor to consolidate
and distribute to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans.\26\ In
contrast, individual exchanges and other market participants distribute
non-core data voluntarily.\27\ The mandatory nature of the core data
disclosure regime leaves little room for competitive forces to
determine products and fees.\28\ Non-core data products and their fees
are, by contrast, much more sensitive to competitive forces. The
Commission therefore is able to use competitive forces in its
determination of whether an exchange's proposal to distribute non-core
data meets the standards of Section 6 and Rule 603.\29\ Because BX's
instant proposal relates to the distribution of non-core data, the
Commission will apply the market-based approach set forth in the NYSE
Arca Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 17 CFR 242.603(b). (``Every national securities
exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and national securities
association shall act jointly pursuant to one or more effective
national market system plans to disseminate consolidated
information, including a national best bid and national best offer,
on quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks. Such plan or plans
shall provide for the dissemination of all consolidated information
for an individual NMS stock through a single plan processor.'').
    \27\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74779.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal before the Commission, in part, relates to fees for BX
TotalView which are non-core, depth of book market data products, and
as in the Commission's NYSE Arca Order analysis at least two broad
types of significant competitive forces applied to BX in setting the
terms of this proposal: (i) BX's compelling need to attract order flow
from market participants; and (ii) the availability to market
participants of alternatives to purchasing BX's depth-of-book order
data.
    Attracting order flow is the core competitive concern of any equity
exchange, including BX. Attracting order flow is an essential part of a
national securities exchange's competitive success. If a national
securities exchange cannot attract order flow to its market, it will
not be able to execute transactions. If a national securities exchange
cannot execute transactions on its market, it will not generate
transaction revenue. If a national securities exchange cannot attract
orders or execute transactions on its market, it will not have market
data to distribute, for a fee or otherwise, and will not earn market
data revenue and thus not be competitive with other exchanges that have
this ability. Table 1 below provides a useful recent snapshot of the
state of competition in the U.S. equity markets in the month of January
2009: \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Source: ArcaVision (available at http://
www.arcavision.com).

                   Table 1--Reported Share Volume in U.S.-Listed Equities During January 2009
                                                       [%]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Trading venue                             All stocks      NYSE-Listed    NASDAQ-Listed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASDAQ..........................................................            27.1            20.5            39.9
All Non-Exchange................................................            26.7            26.2            31.0
NYSE Arca.......................................................            17.9            15.7            15.8
NYSE............................................................            14.8            26.2             0.0
BATS............................................................            10.7             9.0            10.8
International Stock Exchange....................................             1.3             1.4             1.4
National Stock Exchange.........................................             0.6             0.7             0.7
Chicago Stock Exchange..........................................             0.4             0.4             0.3
CBOE Stock Exchange.............................................             0.2             0.0             0.1
NYSE Alternext..................................................             0.1             0.0             0.0
NASDAQ OMX BX...................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market share percentages in Table 1 strongly indicate that BX
must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its share of trading
volume. This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant
pressure on BX to act reasonably in setting its fees for BX market
data, particularly given that the market participants that must pay
such fees often will be the same market participants from whom BX must
attract order flow. These market participants particularly include the
large broker-dealer firms that control the handling of a large volume
of customer and proprietary order flow. Given the portability of order
flow from one trading venue to another, any exchange that sought to
charge unreasonably high data fees would risk alienating many of

the same customers on whose orders it depends for competitive
survival.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to BX's TotalView data significantly affect the terms on
which BX can distribute this market data.\32\ In setting the fees for
its BX TotalView data, BX must consider the extent to which market
participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the exchange's data.\33\ Of course, the most basic source of
information generally available at an exchange is the complete record
of an exchange's transactions that is provided in the core data
feeds.\34\ In this respect, the core data feeds that include an
exchange's own transaction information are a significant alternative to
the exchange's market data product.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law Sec.  9.1 (5th
ed. 1998) (discussing the theory of monopolies and pricing). See
also U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed'l Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger
Guidelines Sec.  1.11 (1992), as revised (1997) (explaining the
importance of alternatives to the presence of competition and the
definition of markets and market power). Courts frequently refer to
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission merger
guidelines to define product markets and evaluate market power. See,
e.g., FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2007); FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004). In
considering antitrust issues, courts have recognized the value of
competition in producing lower prices. See, e.g., Leegin Creative
Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007); Atlanta
Richfield Co. v. United States Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574
(1986); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997); Northern Pacific
Railway Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1 (1958).
    \33\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74783.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more specific information concerning depth, market participants
can choose among products offered by the various exchanges and
ECNs.\36\ The various self-regulatory organizations, the several Trade
Reporting Facilities of FINRA, and ECNs that produce proprietary data
are all sources of competition. In addition, market participants can
assess depth with tools other than market data, such as ``pinging''
orders that search out both displayed and nondisplayed size at all
price points within an order's limit price.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74784.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, there are a variety of alternative sources of information
that impose significant competitive pressures on the BX in setting the
terms for distributing its depth-of-book order data. The Commission
believes that the availability of those alternatives, as well as the
BX's compelling need to attract order flow, imposed significant
competitive pressure on the BX to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably
in setting the terms of its proposal.
    Because the BX was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that its terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder. An analysis of the proposal does not
provide such a basis. Further, the Commission did not receive any
comment letters raising concerns of a substantial countervailing basis
that the terms of the proposal failed to meet the requirements of the
Act or the rules thereunder.
    The Commission notes that BX is effectively entering the
competitive markets for equities trading as a start-up venture. If its
fees are not set at a level that will promote competition in these
markets, potential users will simply continue to obtain services from
the Exchange's multiple competitors. Accordingly, the Exchange must set
fees for market data and transaction executions that promote the
Exchange as a trading venue. If its fees are set at inappropriately
high levels, market participants will seek to avoid using the Exchange,
and the Exchange' market data will have little value to market
participants. Thus, consistent with the analysis set forth in the NYSE
Arca Order, the Exchange's operations, products and services must be
designed to promote competition in order to succeed and provide market
participants with viable and cost-effective alternatives to existing
competitors.

B. Testing and Other Fees

    The Exchange proposes to establish new fees for its testing
facility at the rates of $285 per hour for an active connection during
the facility's normal operating hours and $333 per hour for an active
connection at other times. Under the proposal, the Exchange will waive
fees for testing of new, enhanced, or modified services and/or software
offered by the Exchange, as well as for modifications initiated by the
Exchange and for a 30-day period for new subscribers to existing
services, the testing fees will not be charged until the later of (i)
approval of this filing, or (ii) 30 days after the launch of the NASDAQ
OMX BX Equities System. Thereafter, fees will be waived for a 30-day
period for each new market participant. The Commission notes that the
Exchanges's new fees for its testing facility are at levels identical
to the fees for the NASDAQ Exchange's testing facility.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed Equity Rule 7030(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes new fee rules related to special
data requests to allow the Exchange to recoup costs associated with
responding to ad hoc requests for market data, such as requests that
may be made by news reporters or academic researchers.\39\ The Exchange
also proposes fees for partial month charges to enable market data
distributors to elect to be billed on a prorated basis during the month
of initiation or termination of service.\40\ The Commission notes that
these new fees for special data requests and partial month charges are
similar to corresponding NASDAQ Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Equity Rule 7030(b).
    \40\ See proposed Equity Rule 7031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\41\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2009-005) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7085 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74096-74097]
[DOCID:fr05de08-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0194; A-1-FRL-8718-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted on December 19, 2007 by the State of
Connecticut. This SIP revision includes regulations to update the
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in
Connecticut. The revised program includes a test and repair network and
on-board diagnostic (OBD2) testing of 1996 and newer vehicles. The
intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the revised
program into the Connecticut SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0194 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0194'', Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, EPA New England, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114-2023;<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone);<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax); e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 12, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
 [FR Doc. E8-28735 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17041-17047]
[DOCID:fr05ap10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2005-20245; Amendment No. 27-45, 29-52, 91-313, 121-
349, 125-60 and 135-121]
RIN 2120-AJ65

Extension of the Compliance Date for Cockpit Voice Recorder and
Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the FAA published a final rule titled
``Revisions to Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital Flight Data Recorder
Regulations.'' The rule required certain upgrades of cockpit voice
recorder and digital flight data recorder equipment on certain aircraft
beginning April 7, 2010. That compliance date is being changed for
certain requirements on certain aircraft.

DATES: These amendments are effective April 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics Maintenance Branch,
Flight Standards Service, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this final rule contact Karen L. Petronis,
Regulations Division, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations providing minimum
standards for other practices, methods and procedures necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority since flight data recorders are the only means available to
account for aircraft movement and flightcrew actions critical to
finding the probable cause of incidents or accidents, including data
that could prevent future incidents or accidents.

I. Background

A. History of the Regulatory Requirements

    In February 2005, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
proposing to amend the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) and cockpit
voice recorder (CVR) regulations for much of the U.S. fleet of aircraft
(70 FR 9752; February 28, 2005). Some of the changes proposed were
based on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB or Board) that were issued as a result of the Board's
investigations of several aircraft accidents and incidents. A full
discussion of the NTSB's recommendations and the FAA's proposed changes
can be found in the 2005 NPRM.
    In March 2008, the FAA issued a final rule adopting many of those
proposals (73 FR 12541; March 7, 2008). The requirements were adopted
as aircraft certification or operating rules, some of which take effect
on April 7, 2010, and include:
     The recording of datalink communications, when the
communications equipment is installed on or after April 7, 2010;
     Wiring requirements related to single electrical failures
and their effect on the DFDR and CVR systems;
     The addition of a 10-minute independent power source for
the CVR;
     Requirements regarding the CVR location and housing;
     Requirements for the duration of DFDR recording;
     Requirements for the duration of CVR recording; and
     Increased sampling rates for certain DFDR parameters.
    A detailed discussion of the individual requirements and where they
appear in the regulations can be found in the preamble to the 2008
final rule, beginning at page 12556 (Section-By-Section Analysis). Some
of the requirements were promulgated to be effective in two years,
while others were required within four years of April 7, 2008.
    Between May 1, 2009 and December 14, 2009, the FAA received seven
petitions from aircraft manufacturers and two from industry
associations requesting either that the effective dates in the
regulations be changed or that other relief from several of the 2008
requirements be granted for aircraft manufactured on or after April 7,
2010.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 7,
2010 (75 FR 943), the FAA denied all of the petitions and instead
proposed that some of the requirements for newly manufactured aircraft
be extended from the April 7, 2010 compliance date. Specifically, the
FAA proposed that:
    1. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly
manufactured aircraft operated under part 121, 125, or 135 would be
extended until December 6, 2010.
    2. For the datalink recording requirements, the compliance date
after which the installation of datalink communications must include
recording equipment would be extended until December 6, 2010 for
aircraft operating under part 121, 125, or 135.

    3. For the ten-minute backup power source for CVRs, the compliance
date for part 91 operators (only) would be extended to April 6, 2012.
    4. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly
manufactured aircraft operated under part 91 would be extended until
April 6, 2012.
    5. For aircraft operating under part 91, datalink communications
would have to be recorded when datalink communication equipment is
installed on or after April 6, 2012.
    These proposed changes were the ones the FAA found to be
potentially justified by the petitions submitted. All other compliance
dates in the 2008 final rule remained as adopted, including the wiring
requirements for CVRs and DFDRs; 25-hour solid state memory DFDRs; two-
hour solid state memory CVRs; the CVR and DFDR housing requirements;
and the ten-minute backup power source for CVRs on aircraft operated
under part 121, 125, or 135. A more complete discussion of the requests
and the FAA's proposal can be found in the preamble to the NPRM.

B. General Response to the NPRM

    In the NPRM, the FAA invited comment from manufacturers and
affected operators that may not consider the proposed extension to be
sufficient. The agency requested that comments include specific,
detailed information regarding their actions toward compliance, and
reasons (such as lack of equipment availability) that continue to
affect timely compliance with the 2008 regulations.
    The FAA received 14 comment documents to the NPRM, including five
from airframe manufacturers, three from avionics equipment
manufacturers, two from industry trade associations, three from air
carriers, and from the NTSB. The comments generally supported the
proposed changes, while three manufacturers requested further extension
of the compliance dates based on continuing issues with compliance for
certain models. One avionics equipment manufacturer stated that it had
been ready to supply equipment and that an extension would serve as a
reward to suppliers who did not provide compliant systems by the date
required in the 2008 regulations.
    The NTSB supported the FAA and stated that our proposed extension
of certain compliance dates was ``reasonable and realistic.'' The NTSB
opposed any further delay that might be requested, and suggested that
some of the original four-year compliance times could be shortened.

C. Aligning Requirements for Parts 91 and 135

    The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and
Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier) each submitted a comment encouraging the
FAA to extend the dates for part 135 operation compliance to match
those proposed for part 91. Each of the commenters noted that it is
common for a business aircraft to spend part of its time operating
under the regulations of part 91, and part of its time operating under
part 135.
    The GAMA stated that the manufacturers of these aircraft have made
significant progress toward compliance in the last 18 months, but that
technical difficulties remain with full compliance. Since the
manufacturers seek to deliver aircraft that meet their customers' need
to change operating parts, it means that part 135 compliance is
required, but that it cannot be integrated into the manufacturing
process for deliveries made beginning April 8, 2010. The proposed part
91 compliance date extension would provide no relief for most of the
aircraft they manufacture because of the dual operational use of the
aircraft.
    Bombardier noted that its primary avionics equipment suppliers
focused on the commercial aircraft market (for parts 121 and 125) with
their more generalized system architectures as their primary goal for
2010 compliance. Accordingly, Bombardier's aircraft produced for part
121 and 125 operators will meet the April 7, 2010, date without needing
to make use of the proposed extension for those operations. But those
compliance efforts have resulted in the engineering for Bombardier's
business aircraft, which it describes as having ``more exotic bus
architectures and systems that * * * cannot be supported by other
suppliers'' remaining incomplete. Bombardier also noted that its
Challenger aircraft model will need unanticipated hardware upgrades to
meet the 8Hz sampling rates, and these costs and the underlying
engineering were unanticipated in the 2008 final rule. This has taken
the Challenger aircraft even further out of the normal manufacturing
sequence and efforts to achieve compliance with the 2008 regulations.
For its Challenger and BD-700 aircraft models, the proposed extension
for increased sampling rates to December 2010 would decrease the number
of noncompliant aircraft, but would not completely eliminate the need
for exemptions to operate under part 135.
    Honeywell Aerospace also recommended that part 135 operations be
aligned with part 91 and the compliance date for them be extended to
2012, noting the crossover in operations and the lack of available
compliant solutions for those aircraft. Gulfstream also requested that
the proposed part 91 compliance extension be extended to part 135
operations for aircraft with a capacity of 19 or fewer passengers, but
did not detail its specific equipment or certification issues.
    The FAA disagrees that aircraft operated under part 135 should be
treated the same as aircraft operated under part 91. It is true that
the same aircraft may be used in both part 91 and part 135 operations.
The FAA has addressed differing equipage and maintenance requirements
in the past by requiring that the higher standard be met for all
operations when there is mixed use. The agency sees no reason to change
that practice in this instance.
    The FAA considers part 135 operators more akin to those of part 121
than those of part 91, and proposed the same compliance date extension
for both part 121 and 135. The general public, in purchasing air
transportation, expects a level of equipage and safety that it would
not necessarily expect to see in general aviation. The FAA has always
maintained higher standards for aircraft operated for compensation or
hire and sees no reason to change its position here. As a practical
matter, the shorter compliance date will likely result in the aircraft
used solely in part 91 operations complying before the April 2012
compliance date.
    No changes are being adopted based on these comments. For part 135
airplanes, the installation of increased DFDR sampling rates and
datalink recording equipment is extended until December 6, 2010, as
proposed.

D. Rule Language Discrepancy

    Several commenters, including the Boeing Company (Boeing), Airbus,
and Avianca Airlines, identified a discrepancy between the text of
current Sec.  121.359(k) and the proposed rule text of Sec.  121.359(j)
regarding the datalink message set requirements in Sec.  25.1457(a)(6).
    The proposed rule text did contain an error. A similar error exists
in other proposed operating rule sections. This final rule corrects the
references in Sec. Sec.  91.609(i), 121.359(j), 125.227(h), and
135.151(g)(1) and (g)(2) to indicate the correct compliance date for
datalink recording requirements.

E. Miscellaneous Comments

    Boeing noted that in July 2009, it had requested a one-year
exemption for all of its production models from the requirement for a
ten-minute CVR independent power source. Boeing indicated that it has
made significant advancements toward compliance since its original
request, and expects to achieve compliance for all models except the
Boeing 737. Boeing requested that the compliance date for 737s be
changed from April 7, 2010 to July 6, 2010, noting that about 15
aircraft are expected to be produced during that time, which is before
the power source equipment can be certificated and installed.
    The FAA will not extend the compliance date in the rule for a
single model of aircraft. The agency appreciates Boeing's renewed
efforts at timely compliance, and will address the need for individual
model 737 aircraft to be granted temporary operating exemptions when
requested by the operators taking delivery of the affected aircraft.
Requests for exemption need to be filed by the affected operators under
the procedures of 14 CFR part 11. Any aircraft granted an exemption
will need to be retrofitted with the power source equipment before any
granted exemption expires.
    In its comment, Airbus included detailed descriptions of its
efforts toward compliance since it filed a petition for exemption in
June 2009 on behalf of affected operators of its aircraft. Airbus
indicated that it cannot guarantee that design changes necessary to
implement the increased DFDR sampling rates will be ready before the
December 6, 2010 extension proposed in the NPRM, and renewed its
request that the compliance date be extended a full year.
    The FAA has determined that the compliance date for part 121, 125,
and 135 aircraft DFDR sampling rates will be extended until December 6,
2010, as proposed. Operators that require relief for aircraft
manufactured after that date may apply for temporary exemption relief
under 14 CFR part 11.
    Airbus also renewed its request to extend the compliance time for
datalink recording by one year from the current rule, indicating that
the alternative is to have inactive datalink communication equipment
installed.
    The FAA has again concluded that any future benefit of using
datalink equipment alone is outweighed by the risk of not having the
communications recorded. Once datalink equipment is installed and is in
use for instructions that affect the movement of the aircraft, a record
of those instructions becomes a critical element for post accident and
incident investigation. The data provided by these and other recordings
play a critical part in understanding the actions and events that lead
up to the accident or incident. Once probable cause has been
determined, actions can be taken to prevent future accidents of the
same type from occurring. The elimination of voice communication and
the requirements that it be recorded must be accomplished in a manner
that maintains the integrity of the information, and that will occur
when datalink communications are recorded. The implementation of the
recording requirement cannot be further delayed in favor of some
generalized benefit of lessened environmental operational impact and
eventual international harmonization. The FAA notes that datalink
communication remains optional under our regulations. But when chosen
to be installed, the safety issues that attach to its use require that
recordation of those communications not be delayed any further.
    Nor does the FAA accept the argument that since some datalink
communications are captured on the ground, it would be an acceptable
alternative to onboard recordation. Such activities are not recognized
by federal regulation and raise questions with regard to who intercepts
and maintains the record of such communications and to whom they would
be accessible. Nor are there any industry standards for the capture or
maintenance of data recorded by ground-based systems. While such
activities may become acceptable in the future as the technology
advances, it does not change the need for recording datalink
communications on board an aircraft now.
    The Air Transport Association (ATA) commented on behalf of its
member operators that the proposed extensions will reduce the number of
airplanes that are unable to comply, but will not eliminate the
potential need for temporary exemptions. The ATA also renewed its
request for a change in the date after which in-service aircraft need
to add datalink recording capability when new datalink equipment is
installed.
    The FAA understands that the compliance extensions for part 121,
125, and 135 operations adopted in this final rule may not capture
every aircraft manufactured in 2010. As we noted in response to the
Boeing 737 issue with the CVR independent power source, the FAA
anticipates that some exemption requests will be filed. The FAA has
found that the proposed compliance extension is appropriate under the
circumstances described by the industry, but that further extension is
not. The FAA notes that no matter how far in advance compliance dates
are set, the agency is almost always faced with requests for temporary
exemption as those dates approach. As indicated in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the agency has not been persuaded that a different
compliance time is either necessary or appropriate for in-service
aircraft adding optional new datalink equipment. In response to
industry inquiries, the FAA plans to publish on its Web site additional
guidance on datalink recording compliance for upgrades to existing
aircraft.

F. Rotorcraft Corrections

    In the NPRM, we also proposed changes to the certification rules of
parts 27 and 29 to correct references to airplanes that were
inadvertently placed in the rotorcraft certification rules. No comments
were received on these proposed changes and they are adopted as
proposed.

G. Final Rule Summary

    As compared with the final rule adopted in March 2008, this final
rule adopts the following flight recorder equipment compliance times:
    1. For the ten-minute backup power source for CVRs, the compliance
date for newly manufactured aircraft operating under part 91 is April
6, 2012.
    2. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly
manufactured aircraft operating under part 91 is April 6, 2012.
    3. For increased DFDR sampling rates, the compliance date for newly
manufactured aircraft operating under part 121, 125, or 135 is December
6, 2010.
    4. For recordation of datalink communications, the compliance date
after which newly installed datalink systems must include recording
capability for aircraft operating under part 91 is April 6, 2012.
    5. For recordation of datalink communications, the compliance date
after which newly installed datalink systems must include recording
capability for aircraft operating under part 121, 125, or 135 is
December 6, 2010.

II. Regulatory Notice and Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no current

or new requirement for information collection associated with this
amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it is to be included in the preamble
if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not
prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    In response to its 2010 NPRM, the FAA received several comments
that generally supported the proposed compliance dates. As discussed in
the NPRM, the FAA recognizes that technical difficulties have
necessitated the extension of certain compliance dates. By extending
the compliance dates, this rule will eliminate some retrofit and
airplane downtime costs.
    Some commenters requested that the proposed part 135 compliance
date be aligned with the proposed part 91 compliance date because some
newly manufactured airplanes will operate under both part 91 and part
135. The FAA has determined that part 135 operations are more like part
121 operations, and the same compliance date extension is being adopted
for those two parts.
    The FAA has determined that this rule is cost relieving, is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    The compliance dates extensions will reduce the costs by delaying
the date after which certain production aircraft must record some
parameters at a higher sampling rate. Since these aircraft would not
have been able to comply with the original date, this final rule
reduces some of these costs. The expected outcome will benefit small
operators that purchase new aircraft.
    Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this rule and has determined that it will reduce
costs on both domestic and international entities and thus has a
neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $141.3 million in lieu of $100
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation,
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, we
requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did not receive any

comments, and we have determined, based on the administrative record of
this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

Good Cause

    This final rule amends certain compliance dates in various
operating regulations and provides relief to operators of certain
aircraft manufactured on or after April 7, 2010. Since that date is
less than 30 days from the publication of these amendments, the FAA has
determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make this
rule effective less than 30 days from publication.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135

    Air carriers, Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter
flights, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.1457 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  27.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  27.1459 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  27.1459  Flight data recorders.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
4. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  29.1457 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  29.1457  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  29.1459 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  29.1459  Flight data recorders.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) It remains powered for as long as possible without
jeopardizing emergency operation of the rotorcraft.
* * * * *

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
7. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531,
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(61 stat. 1180).

0
8. Amend Sec.  91.609 by revising paragraph (i)(1) adding new paragraph
(i)(3) and revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.609  Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except for paragraphs (a)(6) and (d)(5)); Sec.  25.1457
(except for paragraphs (a)(6) and (d)(5)); Sec.  27.1457 (except for
paragraphs (a)(6) and (d)(5)); or Sec.  29.1457 (except for paragraphs
(a)(6) and (d)(5)) of this chapter, as applicable; and
* * * * *
    (3) For all airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after April
6, 2012,

also meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(a)(6) and (d)(5); Sec.
25.1457(a)(6) and (d)(5); Sec.  27.1457(a)(6) and (d)(5); or Sec.
29.1457(a)(6) and (d)(5) of this chapter, as applicable.
    (j) All airplanes or rotorcraft required by this section to have a
cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, that install
datalink communication equipment on or after April 6, 2012, must record
all datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable
to the aircraft.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend appendix E to part 91 by revising footnote 5 to read as
follows:

Appendix E to Part 91--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\5\ For Pitch Control Position only, for all aircraft manufactured
on or after April 6, 2012, the sampling interval (per second) is 8.
Each input must be recorded at this rate. Alternately sampling
inputs (interleaving) to meet this sampling interval is prohibited.

0
10. Amend appendix F to part 91 by revising footnote 4 to read as
follows:

Appendix F to Part 91--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\4\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after April 6, 2012, the
sampling interval per second is 4.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
11. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.

0
12. Amend Sec.  121.359 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (j)(1),
adding new paragraph (j)(4), and revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:

Sec.  121.359  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)) or Sec.
25.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6) or Sec.  25.1457 (except for
paragraph (a)(6)) of this chapter, as applicable;
* * * * *
    (4) For all airplanes manufactured on or after December 6, 2010,
also meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(a)(6) or Sec.
25.1457(a)(6) of this chapter, as applicable.
    (k) All airplanes required by this part to have a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder, that install datalink
communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must record all
datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable to
the airplane.

0
13. Amend appendix M to part 121 by revising footnote 18, to read as
follows:

Appendix M to Part 121--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, the
seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be recorded
at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to meet
this sampling interval is prohibited.
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT

0
14. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

0
15. Amend Sec.  125.227 by revising paragraph (h)(1), adding new
paragraph (h)(4), and revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  125.227  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
25.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)) of this chapter;
* * * * *
    (4) For all airplanes manufactured on or after December 6, 2010,
also meets the requirements of Sec.  25.1457(a)(6) of this chapter.
    (i) All airplanes required by this part to have a cockpit voice
recorder and a flight data recorder, that install datalink
communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must record all
datalink messages as required by the certification rule applicable to
the airplane.

0
16. Amend appendix E to part 125 by revising footnote 18, to read as
follows:

Appendix E to Part 125--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, the
seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be recorded
at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to meet
this sampling interval is prohibited.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
17. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

0
18. Amend Sec.  135.151 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (g)(1)(i),
(g)(2)(i), and (h) and by adding paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2)(iv)
to read as follows:

Sec.  135.151  Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)); Sec.
25.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)); Sec.
27.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)); or Sec.
29.1457 (except paragraphs (a)(6), (d)(1)(ii), (4), and (5)) of this
chapter, as applicable; and
* * * * *
    (g)(1) * * *
    (i) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)); Sec.  25.1457 (except for
paragraph (a)(6)); Sec.  27.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)); or
Sec.  29.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)) of this chapter, as
applicable; and
* * * * *
    (iv) For all airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after
December 6, 2010, also meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(a)(6);
Sec.  25.1457(a)(6); Sec.  27.1457(a)(6); or Sec.  29.457(a)(6) of this
chapter, as applicable.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Is installed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
23.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)); Sec.  25.1457 (except for
paragraph (a)(6)); Sec.  27.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)); or
Sec.  29.1457 (except for paragraph (a)(6)) of this chapter, as
applicable; and
* * * * *
    (iv) For all airplanes or rotorcraft manufactured on or after
December 6, 2010, also meets the requirements of Sec.  23.1457(a)(6);
Sec.  25.1457(a)(6);

Sec.  27.1457(a)(6); or Sec.  29.457(a)(6) of this chapter, as
applicable.
    (h) All airplanes or rotorcraft required by this part to have a
cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, that install
datalink communication equipment on or after December 6, 2010, must
record all datalink messages as required by the certification rule
applicable to the aircraft.

0
19. Amend appendix C to part 135 by revising footnote 4 to read as set
forth below.

Appendix C to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\4\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, the
sampling interval per second is 4.

0
20. Amend appendix E to part 135 by revising footnote 3 to read as set
forth below.

Appendix E to Part 135--Helicopter Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\3\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, the
sampling interval per second is 4.

0
21. Amend appendix F to part 135 by revising footnote 18 to read as set
forth below.

Appendix F to Part 135--Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications

* * * * *
\18\ For all aircraft manufactured on or after December 6, 2010, the
seconds per sampling interval is 0.125. Each input must be recorded
at this rate. Alternately sampling inputs (interleaving) to meet
this sampling interval is prohibited.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-7660 Filed 4-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 21, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-96-2018

_____________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  Federal Express Corporation  filed  5/7/02  for:

XX  Waiver of the 90-day dormancy condition

By Order 96-2-17 the Department granted Federal Express exemption
authority to provide scheduled all-cargo service in the New
York/Memphis-Moscow market and allocated it five weekly all-cargo
frequencies for this service.  That award was subject to the condition
that the frequency allocation would expire automatically and the
frequencies would revert to the Department for reallocation if they were
not used for a period of 90 days.

On November 1, 1999, Federal Express temporarily suspended its direct
flight operations serving Moscow.  By Notices of Action Taken dated
January 24, 2000, and October 10, 2000; Order 2001-11-15; and Notice of
Action Taken dated March 27, 2002, the Department granted Federal
Express waivers of the 90-day dormancy condition.  The latest waiver is
through June 30, 2002, for one frequency, and through

November 1, 2002, for four frequencies.

Federal Express now seeks a further waiver from the dormancy condition
for all five of its frequencies until April 11, 2004, when the Annexes
to the U.S.-Russia agreement will expire.  Federal Express stated that
it had planned to provide one weekly round trip between Memphis and
Moscow via Paris, before June 30, 2002, but during U.S.-Russia
negotiations in April 2002, revisions to the Annexes made it impossible
for Federal Express to use the frequencies as planned.

Applicant rep. : Melissa Paul,<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT analyst : Sylvia
Moore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (See Remarks)

The above action was effective when taken for all five frequencies:
June 21, 2002,  until  April 11, 2004

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

	                Office of International Aviation

2

Remarks:   As a result of revisions to the Annexes of the 1994
U.S.-Russia Air Transport Agreement, temporarily suspending all U.S.
carrier traffic rights between European points and Russia until April
11, 2004, we have granted Federal Express’ request for a waiver until
April 11, 2004, based on the circumstances stated in the request.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy, and (2) the authority granted is consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Federal Express’ waiver from the dormancy condition is effective
through April 11, 2004, or until the date on which Federal Express
begins service with each of the frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.
The 90-day dormancy period will begin on the date Federal Express begins
service.  As to any frequency with which Federal Express does not begin
service by April 11, 2004, its frequency allocation with respect to that
frequency expires automatically.


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

    \108\ See CME Rule 39002.G, available at: http://www.cmegroup.com/rulebook/CME/IV/350/390.pdf.
    \109\ See Cboe Options Rule 24.6, Interpretation and Policy .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change regarding the last trading day for MSCI
EAFE and Emerging Markets Index options will protect investors, because
it will eliminate pricing risk for liquidity providers on the last
trading day of expiring series in these products. The Exchange expects
reduced liquidity on expiration dates of expiring EAFE and EM series
due to the pricing risk associated with providing liquidity after the
components whose closing prices will be used to determine the exercise
settlement value of expiring options have stopped trading. Market-
Makers and other liquidity providers generally price EAFE and EM
options using the disseminated index values and data from the markets
on which the components trade. As noted above, when these markets are
not trading during U.S. trading hours, these liquidity providers price
the options using prices of futures trading on the MSCI EAFE and EM
indexes. While those futures prices can serve as a proxy for the index
value, they cannot serve as a proxy for the settlement value on the
expiration date for the options. This is because the futures pricing is
intended to represent the then-current index value, but does not
incorporate the closing prices of the components that will be used to
determine the settlement value. This creates risk for Market-Makers and
other liquidity providers, as they have no data they can use to price
the expiring options based on the ultimate settlement value. This may
result in trades at prices inconsistent with the settlement value of
those options. The proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by eliminating this
pricing risk for liquidity providers on the last trading day of
expiring series in these products. The Exchange believes this may
encourage additional liquidity providers to participate on the last
trading of expiring series, which may provide more competitive pricing
and additional trading opportunities for expiring series, and
ultimately benefits investors. Additionally, this is the same last
trading for expiring series in these products as Cboe Options.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Cboe Options Rule 24.6, Interpretation and Policy .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change regarding not opening options on foreign
indexes for trading when component securities are not trading will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest by (1) limiting users' ability to
trade particular index options to days on which there is not a holiday
on a foreign exchange because doing so allows users of these index
options to trade on days in which Market-Makers may potentially provide
tighter markets and (2) providing a mechanism for notifying market
participants of the days on which options on a particular foreign index
will not be open due to a holiday on the foreign exchange(s) on which
the index constituents trade. Additionally, Cboe Options has the same
provision in its Rules.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Cboe Options Rule 24.6, Interpretation and Policy .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is generally intended to align system
functionality currently offered by the Exchange with Cboe Options
functionality in order to provide a consistent technology offering for
the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in
turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes, and
maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange believes this consistency will
promote a fair and orderly national options market system. When Cboe
Options migrates to the same technology as that of the Exchange and
other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, Users of the Exchange and other Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges will have access to similar functionality on all
Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As such, the proposed rule change would
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.

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. The

Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to adopt Global
Trading Hours will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
because all Trading Permit Holders will be able, but not be required,
to participate during Global Trading Hours, and will be able to do so
using the same connectivity as they use during Regular Trading Hours.
Participation in GTH will be voluntary and within the discretion of
TPHs. While the proposed rule change increases the total time during
which a Market-Maker with a DJX appointment must quote, this increase
is de minimis given that a Market-Maker's compliance with its
continuous quoting obligation is based on all classes in which it has
an appointment in the aggregate. Selecting an appointment in DJX
options will be optional and within the discretion of a Market-Maker.
Additionally, the Exchange is providing Market-Makers with the
opportunity to quote during GTH (and receive the benefits of acting as
a Market-Maker with respect to transactions it effects during that
time) without obtaining an additional Trading Permit or creating
additional connections to the Exchange (as is required on Cboe
Options). Extending a Market-Maker's appointment to Global Trading
Hours will enhance liquidity during that trading session, which
benefits all investors during those hours. The Exchange believes that
the slight additional burden of extending the continuous quoting
obligation to the GTH trading session in one class is outweighed by the
Exchange's efforts to add liquidity in All Sessions classes, the
minimal preparation a Market-Maker may require to participate in the
GTH trading session, and the benefits to investors that may result from
that liquidity. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change provides customer trading interest with a net benefit, and
continues to maintain a balance of Market-Maker benefits and
obligations.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
adopt Global Trading Hours will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change is competitive
initiative that will benefit the marketplace and investors. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition by
providing a service to investors that only one other options exchange
current provides. Additionally, all options exchanges are free to
compete in the same manner. The Exchange further believes that the same
level of competition among options exchanges will continue during
Regular Trading Hours. Because the Exchange proposes to make only
exclusively listed products available for trading during Global Trading
Hours, and because any All Sessions orders that do not trade during GTH
will be eligible to trade during the RTH trading session in the same
manner as all other orders during Regular Trading Hours, the proposed
rule change will have no effect on the national best prices or trading
during Regular Trading Hours. The Exchange also believes the proposed
rule change could increase its competitive position outside of the
United States by providing investors with an additional investment
vehicle with respect to their global trading strategies during times
that correspond with parts of regular trading hours outside of the
United States.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
adopt an opening auction process will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because it will apply to orders and quotes of all
market participants in the same manner. The same order types that are
not currently accepted prior to the opening, and that do not
participate in the opening process, will similarly not be accepted
during the Queuing Period or be eligible for trading during the opening
rotation.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
adopt an opening auction process will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because it is designed to open series on the
Exchange in a fair and orderly manner. The Exchange believes an opening
auction process will enhance the openings of series on the Exchange by
providing an opportunity for price discovery based on then-current
market conditions. The proposed auction process will provide an
opportunity for price discovery when a series opens ensure there
sufficient liquidity in a series when it opens, and ensure series open
at prices consistent with then-current market conditions (at the
Exchange and other exchanges) rather than extreme prices that could
result in unfavorable executions to market participants. Additionally,
as discussed above, the proposed opening auction process is
substantially similar to the Cboe Options opening auction process.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See Cboe Options Rule 6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change regarding trading
hours for index options will not impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, because those trading hours will apply to all
market participants that elect to trade in those options. If the
Exchange determines in the future to list these index options for
trading, trading in these index options would be in the discretion of
market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
will not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
because the proposed trading hours for these index options are the same
as those on another options exchange.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See Cboe Options Rules 24.6 and 24.9(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \114\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \115\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2019-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-009 and should be submitted on
or before May 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\116\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09634 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P