[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48269-48274]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19333]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72806; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Singly Listed Options

August 11, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 1, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section III of the Pricing Schedule
which pertains to Singly Listed Options fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Singly Listed Options fees includes options overlying
currencies, equities, ETFs, ETNs treasury securities and indexes not
listed on another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Section III of the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled ``Singly Listed Options'' to: (1)
Amend Options Transaction Charges; (ii) delete NASDAQ OMX Alpha
Indexes\(TM)\ (``Alpha Indexes''),\4\ MSCI Index Options,\5\ and
Treasury Securities \6\

pricing; (iii) adopt new pricing for FX Options \7\ (currencies); and
(iv) make other technical amendments to the Pricing Schedule to clarify
text and remove outdated text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Alpha Indexes measure relative total returns of one stock
and one exchange-traded fund share (``ETF'') underlying options
which are also traded on the Exchange (each such combination of two
components is referred to as an ``Alpha Pair''). The first component
identified in an Alpha Pair (the ``Target Component'') is measured
against the second component identified in the Alpha Pair (the
``Benchmark Component''). Alpha Index Options contracts will be
exercised European-style and settled in U.S. dollars. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63860 (February 7, 2011), 76 FR 7888
(February 11, 2001) (SR-Phlx-2010-176).
    \5\ The Exchange filed to list options on the MSCI EM Index. The
MSCI EM Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index
consisting of large and midcap component securities from countries
classified by MSCI as ``emerging markets,'' and is designed to
measure equity market performance of emerging markets. The index
consists of component securities from the following 21 emerging
market countries: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic,
Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand,
and Turkey. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66420 (February
17, 2012), 77 FR 11177 (February 24, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2011-179) (an
order granting approval of the proposal to list and trade options on
the MSCI EM Index). The Exchange also filed to list options on the
MSCI EAFE Index. The MSCI EAFE Index is a free float-adjusted market
capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market
performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The
MSCI EAFE Index consists of component securities from the following
twenty-two (22) developed market countries: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66569 (March 9,
2012), 77 FR 15409 (March 15, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2012-28).
    \6\ Subsection (a)(1) of Phlx Rule 1001D states that the term
``Treasury securities'' (also known as Treasury debt securities)
means a bond or note or other evidence of indebtedness that is a
direct obligation of, or an obligation guaranteed as to principal or
interest by, the United States or a corporation in which the United
States has a direct or indirect interest (except debt securities
guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the
Government National Mortgage Association). Securities issued or
guaranteed by individual departments or agencies of the United
States are sometimes referred to by the title of the department or
agency involved (e.g., a ``Treasury security'' is a debt instrument
that is issued by the United States Treasury).
    \7\ For purposes of pricing of Singly Listed FX Options, this
includes the following U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options:
XDB, XDE, XDN, XDS, XDA, XDM, XEH, XEV, XDZ, XDC and XDV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange assesses an Options Transaction Charge for
Customers of $0.40 per contract, for Professionals,\8\ Firms \9\ and
Broker-Dealers \10\ of $0.60 per contract and for Specialists \11\ and
Market Makers \12\ of $0.40 per contract. These fees apply to options
overlying currencies,\13\ equities, exchange-traded notes
(``ETNs''),\14\ exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') \15\ and indexes.\16\
Today, these fees do not apply to Alpha Index Options, MSCI Index
Options or Treasury Securities, which have separate pricing listed in
Section III of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange proposes to increase
the Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges
from $0.60 to $0.70 per contract for Singly Listed Options. The
increase aligns these fees with electronic Non-Penny Pilot fees in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule.\17\ Despite the fee increase, the
proposal will allow the Exchange to incentivize market participants to
transact Singly Listed Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \9\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \10\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \11\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \12\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders
(see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \13\ U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options include XDB,
XDE, XDN, XDS, XDA, XDM, XEH, XEV, XDZ, XDC and XDV.
    \14\ ETNs are also known as ``Index-Linked Securities,'' which
are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific
market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable
underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative
instruments or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked
Securities are the non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a
term of at least one (1) year but not greater than thirty (30)
years. Despite the fact that Index-Linked Securities are linked to
an underlying index, each trade as a single, exchange-listed
security. Accordingly, rules pertaining to the listing and trading
of standard equity options apply to Index-Linked Securities.
    \15\ An ETF is an open-ended registered investment company under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 that has received certain
exemptive relief from the Commission to allow secondary market
trading in the ETF shares. ETFs are generally index-based products,
in that each ETF holds a portfolio of securities that is intended to
provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally
correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying
benchmark index.
    \16\ The following index symbols will be assessed the Options
Transaction Charges in Section III for Singly Listed Options: SOX,
HGX and OSX.
    \17\ Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms are assessed a
$0.70 per contract electronic Options Transaction Charge in Multiply
Listed Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete pricing related to Alpha Indexes,
MSCI Index Options and Treasury Securities because the Exchange no
longer lists options on Alpha Indexes, MSCI Index Options or Treasury
Securities. The separate pricing related to these products is not
relevant to any product currently listed on Phlx. The Exchange proposes
to remove the words ``treasury securities'' from the title of Section
III.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new pricing for FX Options
(currently referred to as currencies in the Pricing Schedule in Section
III and including XDB, XDE, XDN, XDS, XDA, XDM, XEH, XEV, XDZ, XDC and
XDV). Today, as noted above, the Exchange assesses an Options
Transaction Charge for Customer of $0.40 per contract, for
Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer of $0.60 per contract and for
Specialist and Market Maker of $0.40 per contract and these fees apply
to options overlying FX Options. The Exchange is proposing to adopt new
pricing for FX Options to incentivize market participants to transact a
greater number of FX Options. The Exchange also proposes to refer to
``currencies'' as ``FX Options'' in the Pricing Schedule.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to pay the following Rebates
for Adding Liquidity and assess the following per contract Fees for
Removing Liquidity in Singly Listed FX Options for Simple Orders:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Customer       Specialist     Market maker        Firm        Broker-dealer   Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebate for Adding Liquidity.............................           $0.00           $0.20           $0.20           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
Fee for Removing Liquidity..............................            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would add the above pricing to Section III as Part A.
The Exchange also proposes to assess the following per contract Fees
for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Singly Listed FX Options for
Complex Orders:\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Customer       Specialist     Market maker        Firm        Broker-Dealer   Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee for Adding Liquidity................................           $0.40           $0.40           $0.40           $0.40           $0.40           $0.40
Fee for Removing Liquidity..............................            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40            0.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simple Singly Listed FX Options Orders that are executed against
the individual components of Complex Singly Listed FX Options Orders
will be assessed the fees and paid the rebates in Part A. However, the
individual components of Complex Singly Listed FX Options Orders will
be assessed the fees in Part B. Transactions in Singly Listed FX
Options originating on the Exchange floor will be subject to the Fee
for Removing Liquidity. However, if one side of the transaction
originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the trade was
the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote, then the
Fees for Removing Liquidity will apply to the transactions which
originated on

the Exchange floor and the contracts that are executed electronically
will be subject to the rebates and fees, as applicable, for Simple and
Complex Orders. The fees for FX Options executions in all electronic
auctions including, but not limited to, the Quote Exhaust auction,\19\
the opening process and Complex electronic auction, including the
Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA''),\20\ will be $0.40 per contract
for Customer, Professional, Firm, Broker-Dealer, Specialist and Market
Maker. PIXL \21\ Executions in FX Options will be as follows:
Initiating Order: \22\ $0.20 per contract and all other participants:
$0.40 per contract. The Exchange believes the proposed competitive
pricing will incentivize market participants to transact Singly Listed
FX Options orders on Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A Quote Exhaust occurs when the market at a particular
price level on the Exchange includes a quote, and such market is
exhausted by an inbound contra-side quote or order (``initiating
quote or order''), and following such exhaustion, contracts remain
to be executed from the initiating quote or order. See Exchange Rule
1082(a)(ii)(B)(3).
    \20\ The Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA'') is the auction
for eligible Complex Orders. See Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .08.
    \21\ PIXL is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known as
Price Improvement XL or (PIXL\SM\). See Phlx Rule 1080(n).
    \22\ A member may electronically submit for execution an order
it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-
dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in Rule
1080(n)(i)(E)) it represents as agent (``Initiating Order'')
provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic execution into the
PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange Rule
1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove certain notes in the
Pricing Schedule. The Exchange proposes to remove the note applying to
Treasury Securities, ``The Options Transaction Charges and Rebates for
Treasury Securities will be effective as of March 1, 2013,'' because
this note is outdated. The Exchange also proposes to delete the note 11
in the Pricing Schedule that was applicable to MSCI Index Options and
states, ``Non-Customer executions in MSCI Index Options will be
assessed a surcharge of $0.05 per contract,'' because the Exchange no
longer lists MSCI Index Options. The Exchange proposes to delete note
12 in the Pricing Schedule, ``Options Transaction Charge--Floor will
apply to the first 500 contract only. Each additional contract will be
assessed an options transaction charge--floor of $0.00.'' Note 12 is
associated with Treasury Securities, which are not currently listed on
Phlx.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \23\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\24\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singly Listed Options Transaction Charge
    The Exchange believes that increasing the Professional, Firm and
Broker-Dealer Options Transaction Charges is reasonable because the
Exchange is seeking to conform fees to electronic Non-Penny Pilot
Options \25\ pricing for Multiply Listed Options \26\ in order to
recoup the operational costs \27\ for Singly Listed Options. Also, the
Exchange believes the fees are reasonable because the proposed fees are
within the range of similar fees assessed at other exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ All Singly Listed Options are Non-Penny Pilot Options.
    \26\ See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \27\ By way of example, in analyzing an obvious error, the
Exchange would have additional data points available in establishing
a theoretical price for a Multiply Listed Option as compared to a
Singly Listed Option, which requires additional analysis and
administrative time to comply with Exchange rules to resolve an
obvious error.
    \28\ The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
assesses an $0.80 per contract fee to Customers, Broker-Dealers,
Non-Trading Permit Holder Market Makers and Professional, Voluntary
Professional and Joint Back-Office market participants for SPX Range
Options (SRO) transactions, a proprietary index, in addition to a
surcharge fee. SPX refers to options on the Standard & Poor's 500
Index. See CBOE's Fees Schedule. In addition, NASDAQ Options Market
LLC (``NOM'') assesses Non-Penny Pilot Fees for Removing Liquidity
ranging from $0.85 to $0.89 per contract depending on the market
participant. See Chapter XV, Section 2 of NOM's Rules. The Exchange
also assesses a Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm an electronic
options transaction charge (Non-Penny Pilot Options) of $0.70 per
contract for transactions in Multiply Listed Options. See Section II
of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Professional, Firm and
Broker-Dealer Options Transaction Charges is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the pricing will be comparable among similar
categories of market participants, as is the case today. Professionals,
Firms and Broker-Dealers will be assessed the same rates ($0.70 per
contract) and Customers, Specialists and Market Makers will continue to
be assessed lower rates as compared to other market participants.
Customer order flow is assessed the lowest fee because incentivizing
members to continue to offer Customer trading opportunities in Singly
Listed Options benefits all market participants through increased
liquidity. The Exchange notes that Specialists and Market Makers are
assessed lower options transaction charges as compared to other market
participants, except Customers, because they have burdensome quoting
obligations\29\ to the market which do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. The proposed differentiation
as between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers as compared to
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alpha Indexes, MSCI Index Options and Treasury Securities
    The Exchange's proposal to delete pricing related to Alpha Indexes,
MSCI Index Options and Treasury Securities is reasonable because the
Exchange no longer lists options on Alpha Indexes, MSCI Index Options
or Treasury Securities. The Exchange's proposal to delete pricing
related to Alpha Indexes, MSCI Index Options and Treasury Securities is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the pricing will not
apply to any market participant.
FX Options
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new pricing for Singly Listed FX
Options is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options
exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an
exchange for execution in particular products. Other options exchanges
price by symbol.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and the International Securities
Exchange LLC's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed new Simple and Complex Order pricing in
Singly Listed FX Options is reasonable because the Exchange desires to
incentivize market participants to transact a greater number of Singly
Listed FX Options on Phlx. The Exchange is offering pricing specific to
Singly Listed FX Options because the Exchange believes that
incentivizing Specialists and Market Makers to add increased liquidity
in Singly Listed FX Options by offering Simple Order rebates to these
participants will benefit all market participants through tighter
markets and

order interaction. Also, providing Specialists and Market Makers an
opportunity to earn a rebate will incentivize Specialists and Market
Makers to interact with a greater number of Simple Orders in Singly
Listed FX Options on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to assess lower fees to transact Singly Listed FX Options,
as compared to other Singly Listed products, because the Exchange seeks
to incentivize these market participants to transact a greater number
of FX Options.
    With respect to Simple Orders, the Exchange would only pay a Rebate
for Adding Liquidity to Specialists and Marker Makers to encourage
order interaction in Singly Listed FX Options. All market participants
would be assessed a $0.40 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity in
Singly Listed FX Options. The Exchange believes that the Simple Order
Singly Listed FX Options Fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all market participants would be assessed the
same Fees for Removing Liquidity. Also, offering only Specialists and
Market Makers a Rebate for Adding Liquidity when transacting FX Options
is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because Specialists
and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, \31\ which normally do not apply to other market
participants. They have obligations to make continuous markets, engage
in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or offers
or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of
dealings. With respect to Complex Orders, the Exchange would assess all
market participants a $0.40 per contract Fee for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in Singly Listed FX Options. The Exchange believes that the
Complex Order Singly Listed FX Options Fees are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all market participants would be
assessed the same Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess the fees and pay the rebates in
Part A for Simple FX Options Orders that are executed against the
individual components of Complex FX Options Orders and assess the fees
in Part B to the individual components of Complex FX Options Orders is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange is seeking to assess fees and pay rebates for Singly Listed
Options in a manner comparable to the current Pricing Schedule.\32\ For
example, today, the Exchange assesses fees and pays rebates for Simple
and Complex Orders for SPY transactions in a similar manner as proposed
herein. Additionally, all market participants would be assessed fees
and paid rebates for Singly Listed Options in a uniform manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess transactions in Singly Listed FX
Options originating on the Exchange floor the proposed FX Options Fees
for Removing Liquidity in Section III, unless one side of the
transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any other side of the
trade was the result of an electronically submitted order or a quote,
then the FX Options Fees for Removing Liquidity would apply to
transactions which originated on the Exchange floor and electronically
executed contracts would be subject to the rebates and fees, as
applicable, for Simple and Complex Orders is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons which follow. The Exchange
proposes to assess fees and pay rebates for Singly Listed FX Options in
a manner comparable to the current Pricing Schedule.\33\ For example,
today, the Exchange assesses fees and pays rebates for SPY transactions
for transaction originating on the Exchange floor and electronically
submitted transactions in a similar manner as proposed herein. The
Exchange intends to uniformly apply its fees in the manner described
herein to all market participants. The Exchange believes that the
addition of this rule text in the Pricing Schedule will add clarity to
the manner in which the Exchange will impose fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to treat FX Options executions in Singly
Listed Options which occur as part of an electronic auction, including,
but not limited to, the Quote Exhaust Auction, opening process and
Complex electronic auction, including COLA, in the same manner by
assessing $0.40 per contract for all market participants is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is
proposing to assess the same fee \34\ for these auctions as other
transactions and is proposing to uniformly assess these fees to all
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The proposed Singly Listed FX Options Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Simple and Complex Options is $0.40 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess PIXL pricing for Singly Listed FX
Options of $0.20 per contract for the Initiating Order and $0.40 per
contract for all market participants for all PIXL transactions is
reasonable because the fees should encourage market participants to
transact a greater number of PIXL Orders for the purpose of obtaining
price improvement with respect to their orders. The $0.40 per contract
fee is comparable to the FX Options Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Simple and Complex Options. The Exchange's proposal to assess $0.20 per
contract for the Initiating Order is discounted by half to encourage
market participants to submit Initiating PIXL Orders. The Exchange
similarly lowered the fee for the Initiating Order for options in SPY
in order to encourage market participants to submit a greater number of
Initiating Orders.\35\ The Exchange believes that an Initiating Order
of $0.20 per contract is reasonable given the $0.40 per contract rate
for all other orders in PIXL and the differential between the
Initiating Order and all other orders is within the range of
differentials existing on the Exchange's Pricing Schedule ($0.05 vs.
$0.38 for SPY and $0.05 or $0.07 per contract vs. $0.30 for all other
PIXL Orders).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
    \36\ See Section I and Section IV, Part A of the Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess PIXL pricing for Singly Listed FX
Options of $0.20 per contract for the Initiating Order and $0.40 per
contract for all market participants for all PIXL transactions is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange proposes
to assess all market participants transacting Singly Listed FX Options
in PIXL these rates. Under the proposal, all market participants would
be treated in a uniform manner with respect to FX Options Singly Listed
PIXL orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to delete various notes from the Pricing
Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the notes are outdated or apply to products no longer listed on
Phlx. By removing outdated rule text which is no longer applicable, the
Pricing Schedule will be less confusing and refer to only current
pricing in Section III.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
increasing the Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer Options Transaction
Charges does not create an undue burden on competition because the
Exchange incurs higher

costs to list Singly Listed Options as compared to Multiply Listed
Options and the Exchange proposes to recoup these operational costs by
assessing uniform fees for all market participants except Customers,
Specialists and Market Makers. Customer order flow is assessed the
lowest fee because incentivizing members to continue to offer Customer
trading opportunities in Singly Listed Options benefits all market
participants through increased liquidity. Specialists and Market Makers
are assessed lower options transaction charges as compared to other
market participants, except Customers, because they have burdensome
quoting obligations \37\ to the market which do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. The proposed differentiation
as between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers as compared to
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to delete pricing related to Alpha Indexes,
MSCI Index Options and Treasury Securities does not create an undue
burden on competition because the Exchange no longer lists options on
Alpha Indexes, MSCI Index Options or Treasury Securities and the
pricing will not apply to any market participant.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new pricing for Singly Listed FX
Options does not create an undue burden on competition because pricing
by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a
means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution
in particular products.\38\ Further, incentivizing Specialists and
Market Makers to add increased liquidity in Singly Listed FX Options by
offering Simple Order rebates to these participants will benefit all
market participants through tighter markets and order interaction.
Also, by providing Specialists and Market Makers an opportunity to earn
a rebate will incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to interact
with a greater number of Simple Orders in Singly Listed FX Options on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to assess lower
fees to transact Singly Listed FX Options, as compared to other Singly
Listed products, because the Exchange seeks to incentivize these market
participants to transact a greater number of FX Options. Specialists
and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements,\39\ which normally do not apply to other market
participants. With respect to Complex Orders, the Exchange would
similarly assess all market participants a $0.40 per contract Fee for
Adding and Removing Liquidity in Singly Listed FX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See note 30.
    \39\ See note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess the fees and pay the rebates in
Part A for Simple FX Options Orders that are executed against the
individual components of Complex FX Options Orders and assess the fees
in Part B to the individual components of Complex FX Options Orders is
comparable to the manner in which pricing is currently applied today
for SPY pricing \40\ and does not create an undue burden on competition
because the Exchange uniformly applies this treatment to all market
participants. Similarly, the Exchange's proposal to assess transactions
in Singly Listed FX Options originating on the Exchange floor the
proposed FX Options Fees for Removing Liquidity in Section III, unless
one side of the transaction originates on the Exchange floor and any
other side of the trade was the result of an electronically submitted
order or a quote, then the Fees for Removing Liquidity will apply to
the transactions which originated on the Exchange floor and the
contracts that are executed electronically will be subject to the
rebates and fees, as applicable, for Simple and Complex Orders, does
not create an undue burden on competition because this treatment is
comparable to the manner in which pricing is currently applied today
for SPY pricing \41\ and does not create an undue burden on competition
because the Exchange uniformly applies this treatment to all market
participants. The Exchange's proposal to treat FX Options executions in
Singly Listed Options which occur as part of an electronic auction,
including, but not limited to, the Quote Exhaust Auction, opening
process and Complex electronic auction, including COLA, in the same
manner by assessing $0.40 per contract for all market participants does
not create an undue burden on competition because the Exchange is
proposing to assess the same fee \42\ for these auctions as other
transactions and is proposing to uniformly assess these fees to all
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ The proposed Singly Listed FX Options Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Simple and Complex Options is $0.40 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to assess PIXL pricing for Singly Listed FX
Options of $0.20 per contract for the Initiating Order and $0.40 per
contract for all market participants for all PIXL transactions does not
create an undue burden on competition because the Exchange proposes to
assess all market participants transacting Singly Listed FX Options in
PIXL these rates. Under the proposal, all market participants would be
treated in a uniform manner with respect to FX Options Singly Listed
PIXL orders.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are
influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain
competitive with fees charged by other venues and therefore must
continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\43\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-51 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-Phlx-2014-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-51, and should be
submitted on or before September 5, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19333 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 9, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22725

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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).

Applicant: Swiss European Air Lines Ltd. d/b/a Swiss European

							Date Filed:  October 13, 2005, as amended October 21, 2005

Relief requested:

Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to transport persons, property and
mail by displaying the airline designator codes of United Air Lines,
Inc. (United) and American Airlines, Inc. (American) on flights operated
by Swiss European on behalf of Swiss International Air Lines (Swiss)
between points in Switzerland and between points in Switzerland and
points in third countries.

Statement of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to the extent necessary
for Swiss European to place the designator codes of United and American
on flights that Swiss European operates on behalf of Swiss International
Air Lines (Swiss).   Swiss European proposes to operate these operations
between points in Switzerland and between points in Switzerland and
points in third countries.

By Notice of Action Taken dated December 13, 2005, in this Docket we
granted this application in part, to permit Swiss European to carry the
code of American.   We deferred action on Swiss European’s request
(both as to exemption authority and a statement of authorization) to
carry United’s code pending further advice from the FAA concerning
United’s audit of the carrier under the DOT/FAA code-share Safety
Program Guidelines.  On March 3, 2006, we received the necessary FAA
clearances to enable us to proceed with the deferred portion of this
request.

Applicant representatives:  Evelyn D. Sahr & James G. Ehrig  (202)
289-0500

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved  								Action date:  March 9, 2006

Effective dates of exemption authority granted: March 9, 2006 –
December 13, 2007

Effective dates of statement of authorization granted:  March 9, 2006
– Indefinite, subject to code-share conditions attached.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): The authority is
provided for in the U.S.-Switzerland Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

   X     Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (          )

Special conditions/Partial grant/ Remarks:  By memorandum dated March 3,
2006, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advised us that it knew
of no reason why we should act unfavorably on Swiss European’s
application to code share with United.

The code-share operations authorized here are subject to the following
conditions:

(a)  The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) Swiss European and/or United continue to hold the necessary
underlying authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and
(ii) the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations
remains in effect.

(b)  Swiss European and United must promptly notify the Department
(Office of International Aviation) if the code-share agreement providing
for the code-share operations is no longer effective or the carriers
decide to cease operating any or all of the approved code-share
services.  Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2005-22725.

(c)  Swiss European and United must notify the Department no later than
30 days before they begin any new code-share service under the
code-share services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the
market(s) to be served and the date on which the service will begin.
Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2005-22725.

(d)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR Part 257 and with any amendments to the
Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may
be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the
carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the
requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the
name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected.  Further, the
operating carrier shall not permit the code of its U.S. carrier
code-sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters, departs or
transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the Federal
Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition.

(e)  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither carrier shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

(f)  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, 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:

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 Swiss European states that Swiss is in the process of ending its
code-sharing arrangement with American and commencing its arrangement
with United, and that Swiss European proposes, for a finite period of
time, to operate codeshare service with both carriers.

 Swiss European previously held out under the d/b/a Swiss Too, and
several references in our earlier action reflect the previous d/b/a.

  We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19551-19553]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07230]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88537; File No. SR-ICC-2020-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearance of Additional
Credit Default Swap Contracts

April 1, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on March 26,
2020, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the
ICC Rulebook (the ``Rules'') to provide for the clearance of an
additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign CDS contract (the ``EM
Contract'') and additional Standard Western European Sovereign CDS
contracts (collectively, the ``SWES Contracts'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. ICC proposes to make such changes effective following
Commission approval of the proposed rule change. ICC believes the
addition of these contracts will benefit the market for credit default
swaps by providing market participants the benefits of clearing,
including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin
assets pursuant to clearing house rules. Clearing of the additional EM
Contract and the additional SWES Contracts (collectively, the ``EM and
SWES Contracts'') will not require any changes to ICC's Risk Management
Framework or other policies and procedures constituting rules within
the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').
    ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26D of its Rules to provide for
the clearance of the additional EM Contract, namely the Republic of
Croatia. This additional EM Contract has terms consistent with the
other EM Contracts approved for clearing at ICC and governed by
Subchapter 26D of the Rules. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26D
(Standard Emerging Market Sovereign (``SES'') Single Name) are made to
provide for clearing the additional EM Contract. Specifically, in Rule
26D-102 (Definitions), ``Eligible SES Reference Entities'' is modified
to include the Republic of Croatia in the list of specific Eligible SES
Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
    Additionally, ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26I of its Rules to
provide for the clearance of the additional SWES Contracts, namely the
Republic of Finland and the Hellenic Republic.

These additional SWES Contracts have terms consistent with the other
SWES Contracts approved for clearing at ICC and governed by Subchapter
26I of the Rules. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26I (Standard Western
European Sovereign (``SWES'') Single Name) are made to provide for
clearing the additional SWES Contracts. Specifically, in Rule 26I-102
(Definitions), ``Eligible SWES Reference Entities'' is modified to
include the Republic of Finland and the Hellenic Republic in the list
of specific Eligible SWES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions; to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible;
and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder. The additional EM and SWES Contracts proposed
for clearing are similar to the EM and SWES Contracts currently cleared
by ICC, and will be cleared pursuant to ICC's existing clearing
arrangements and related financial safeguards, protections and risk
management procedures. Clearing of the additional EM and SWES Contracts
will allow market participants an increased ability to manage risk and
ensure the safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house
rules. ICC believes that acceptance of the new EM and SWES Contracts,
on the terms and conditions set out in the Rules, is consistent with
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions
cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of
investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of the additional EM and SWES Contracts will also satisfy
the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22,\5\ as set forth in the
following discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Margin Requirements. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) \6\ requires ICC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its
credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and use
risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements. In terms
of financial resources, ICC will apply its existing initial margin
methodology to the new EM and SWES Contracts, which are similar to the
EM and SWES Contracts currently cleared by ICC. ICC believes that this
model will provide sufficient initial margin requirements to cover its
credit exposure to its clearing members from clearing such contracts,
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial Resources. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) \8\ requires ICC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to maintain financial resources
sufficient to withstand, at a minimum, a default by the two participant
families to which it has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible
market conditions. ICC believes its Guaranty Fund, under its existing
methodology, will, together with the required initial margin, provide
sufficient financial resources to support the clearing of the
additional EM and SWES Contracts, consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational Resources. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4) \10\ requires ICC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify sources of operational risk
and minimize them through the development of appropriate systems,
controls and procedures. ICC believes that its existing operational and
managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of the additional
EM and SWES Contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(4),\11\ as these new contracts are substantially the same from an
operational perspective as existing contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Settlement Procedures. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15) \12\
requires ICC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to employ money settlement
arrangements that eliminate or strictly limit ICC's settlement bank
risks and require funds transfers to ICC to be final when effected;
ensure that final settlement occurs no later than the end of the
settlement day, and require that intraday or real-time finality be
provided where necessary to reduce risks; and state to its participants
ICC's obligations with respect to physical deliveries and identify and
manage the risks from these obligations. ICC will use its existing
settlement procedures and account structures for the new EM and SWES
Contracts, which are similar to the EM and SWES Contracts currently
cleared by ICC, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5),
(12) and (15) \13\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily
settlement process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement
failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Governance Arrangements. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8) \14\ requires ICC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to have governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent to fulfill the public interest requirements in
Section 17A of the Act \15\ applicable to clearing agencies, to support
the objectives of owners and participants, and to promote the
effectiveness of ICC's risk management procedures. ICC determined to
accept the additional EM and SWES Contracts for clearing in accordance
with its governance process, which included review of the contracts and
related risk management considerations by the ICC Risk Committee and
approval by its Board. These governance arrangements continue to be
clear and transparent, such that information relating to the assignment
of responsibilities and the requisite involvement of the ICC Board and
committees is clearly detailed in the ICC Rules and policies and
procedures, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Default Procedures. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) \17\ requires ICC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to establish default procedures that
ensure that it can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity
pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the event of a
participant default. ICC will apply its existing default management
policies and procedures for the additional EM and SWES Contracts. ICC
believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action to
contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its
obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or

defaults in respect of the additional single names, in accordance with
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The additional EM and SWES Contracts will be available to all ICC
participants for clearing. The clearing of these additional EM and SWES
Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the additional EM
and SWES Contracts for clearing by other market participants.
Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance of the additional EM
and SWES Contracts will impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2020-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2020-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2020-003 and should be
submitted on or before April 28, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DesLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07230 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24861-24863]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0671; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-5]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, and Amendment of
Class D and E Airspace; Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace as an
extension to the Class D surface area, modify Class D airspace, and
Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface at Ogden-
Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. This action, initiated by the FAA's
biennial review of the airspace area, would enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at the airport. This action
would also update the geographic coordinates of Ogden-Hinckley Airport
and Hill AFB, Ogden, UT.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
0671; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit

comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may
review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the
ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by
reference material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0671/
Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace as an
extension to the Class D surface area, modifying Class D airspace, and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. Class E airspace as an extension to
the Class D surface area would be established with a segment extending
from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 16 miles southwest of the
airport. The Class D airspace common boundary between Ogden-Hinckley
Airport and Hill AFB, Ogden, UT, would be moved 1 mile northwest. Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be
modified to within a 5.3-mile radius of the airport, with segments
extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 11 miles northwest, and 13 miles
southwest of the airport. This action would also update the geographic
coordinates for Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB. After a review of
the airspace, the FAA found this action necessary for the safety and
management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at
the airport.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
dated August 6, 2014 and effective September 15, 2014, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for 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 I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden
UT.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,

``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures'' prior to any FAA
final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.
* * * * *

ANM UT D Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [Modified]

Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]11'44'' N., long. 112[deg]00'47'' W.)
Hill AFB, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]07'26'' N., long. 111[deg]58'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface up to, but not
including, 7,800 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of the Ogden-Hinckley
Airport, and that airspace beginning at a point where the Ogden-
Hinckley 216[deg] radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius to
the point where the Ogden-Hinckley 231[deg] radial intersects the
4.3-mile radius, thence clockwise along the 4.3-mile radius to where
the Ogden-Hinckley 84[deg] radial intersects the 4.3-mile radius to
the point where the Ogden-Hinckley 99[deg] radial intersects the
Hill AFB 4.6-mile radius, excluding the portion southeast of a line
beginning where the 216[deg] radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-mile
radius, thence northeast to lat. 41[deg]10'21'' N., long.
112[deg]00'55 W.; to lat. 41[deg]10'56'' N., long. 111[deg]59'19''
W.; to a point where the Ogden-Hinckley 99[deg] radial intersects
the Hill AFB 4.6-nm radius. This airspace is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area.

* * * * *

ANM UT E4 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [New]

Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]11'44'' N., long. 112[deg]00'47'' W.)
Hill AFB, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]07'26'' N., long. 111[deg]58'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface 4 miles north
and parallel to the 225[deg] radial of the Ogden-Hinckley Airport,
extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of the
airport, thence southeast to lat.41[deg]2'40'' N.,
long.112[deg]20'4'' W., thence northeast to the point where the
Ogden-Hinckley 99[deg] radial intersects the Hill AFB 4.6-nm radius.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT [Modified]

Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
    (Lat. 41[deg]11'44'' N., long. 112[deg]00'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5.3-mile radius of Ogden-Hinckley Airport, and that
airspace 3 miles either side of the 294[deg] radial from the airport
extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of the
airport, and that airspace 4 miles either side of the Ogden-Hinckley
226[deg] radial from the 5.3-mile radius to 13 miles southwest of
the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 21, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-10044 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4901-13P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54285-54287]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0050]

Hours of Service of Drivers; Parts and Accessories: Application
for Exemptions Renewal for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC, Formerly Known
as ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA renews the exemption granted Cleveland-Cliffs Steel, LLC
(Cliffs), formerly ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC, from certain
hours-of-service (HOS) and cargo securement rules and requests public
comment on the renewal. The renewal of the exemption allows Cliffs'
employee-drivers with commercial driver's licenses (CDLs), who
transport steel coils a fraction of a mile between their production and
shipping locations on public roads, to continue to work up to 16 hours
per day, and to operate with less than 10 consecutive hours off duty
between work shifts. The renewal of the exemption also allows Cliffs to
use metal coil carriers that do not meet the ``heavy hauler trailer''
definition, restrictions on the height of rear side marker lamps, tire
loading restrictions, and the commodity-specific cargo securement
requirements for metal coils. The Agency has concluded that granting
the request for a renewal of the exemption will likely maintain a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety
achieved through compliance with the specific regulatory requirements.
The Agency requests comments on the Cliff's request for a renewal of
the exemption.

DATES: The renewal of the exemption is effective September 23, 2021.
Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2016-0050 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-2016-0050. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jos[eacute] R. Cestero, Vehicle
and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and
Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA 2021-0098), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-201-0050, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-2016-0050 and choose the
document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may
view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

Privacy Act

    DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its
regulatory process, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c). DOT posts these
comments,

without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Legal Basis

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(1), FMCSA may renew an
exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 5-
year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved absent such exemption.'' Cliffs has requested a five-year
extension of the current exemption Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0050. The
procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out
in 49 CFR part 381.

III. Background

    Under 49 CFR 381.315(a), FMCSA must publish a notice of each
exemption request in the Federal Register. The Agency must provide the
public with an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
    The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must
state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the
exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons
receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from
which an exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective
period of the exemption (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemption

    Cliffs, formerly ArcelorMittal, applied to renew an exemption that
allows (1) its employee-drivers with CDLs, who transport steel coils
between the company's production and shipping locations on public
roads, to work up to 16 hours per day and return to work with less than
the mandatory 10 consecutive hours off duty; and (2) to use coil
carriers that do not meet the ``heavy hauler trailer'' definition,
restrictions on the height of rear side marker lights, tire loading
restrictions, and the coil securement requirements in part 393 of the
FMCSRs. On September 23, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of final
disposition granting the exemption until September 23, 2021 (81 FR
65574). The renewal outlined in this notice extends the exemption
through September 23, 2026, and requests public comment.

Equivalent Level of Safety

    With regard to the method to ensure that a level of safety
equivalent to compliance with to the applicable FMCSRs, the Agency
indicated in its September 23, 2016 notice that the company asserted
that it has taken additional precautions to use public roadways for the
shortest possible distances and only at controlled intersections. The
Agency explained that the company ensures that all lights are properly
working on both the tractor and trailer. It also flags and marks the
vehicles as ``oversize'' loads. Trailers have conspicuity tape down the
entire side to make them more visible to other traffic. FMCSA noted
that the applicant believes that its additional precautions ensure a
level of safety that is equivalent to or exceeds the level of safety
achieved by following the regulations.
    The company acknowledged in its application that the drivers would
remain subject to all the other applicable Federal regulations. This
includes qualification of drivers, controlled substance and alcohol
testing. Also, the company would ensure full compliance with the
inspection, repair and maintenance rules.
    FMCSA emphasizes that the renewal of the exemptions would continue
under extremely narrow conditions. One exemption enables the drivers
them to work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to
work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary. This
is somewhat comparable to current HOS regulations that allow certain
``short-haul'' drivers a 16-hour driving ``window'' once a week (49 CFR
395.1(o)) and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two 16-hour duty periods
per week (49 CFR 395.1(e)(2)), provided specified conditions are met.
However, current regulations require a minimum of 10 hours off duty
between duty periods.
    The other exemption is restricted to company's coil carriers as
described in its application. The exemption enables CMVs that do not
meet the parts and accessories requirements in part 393 to use two
short segments of public highway to move coils from one part of the
plant to another for shipment to its customers. The CMVs operated by
Cleveland-Cliffs' drivers will be exposed to other traffic for very
brief periods, as discussed above.

Preliminary Decision To Renew the Exemption

    FMCSA is not aware of any evidence of a degradation in safety
attributable to the current exemption for employee-drivers and trucks
that transport metal coils. There is no indication of an adverse impact
on safety while operating under the terms and conditions specified in
the September 23, 2016 (81 FR 65574) notice of final determination.
    The exemption is renewed subject to the requirements that only
Cliff's drivers that transport steel coil are exempted from 49 CFR part
395. Drivers utilizing the exemption may work up to 16 consecutive
hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8
hours off duty when necessary.
    In addition, the exemption from certain sections in 49 CFR part 393
(Sec. Sec.  393.5; 393.11 Table 1--Footnote 4; 393.75(f); and 393.120)
is restricted to Cliffs' CMVs that transport coils. The CMVs must only
cross on Riley Road, where they travel 80 feet and Dickey Road and
129th Street where they travel .2 miles to move coils from one part of
the plant to another for shipment to its customers. All drivers must
have CDLs and drivers and vehicles must comply with all other
applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
Cliffs must maintain any oversize-overweight permits required by local
authorities.
    The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Cliffs fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
    The Agency believes that extending the exemption granted on
September 23, 2016 for another five years, under the same terms and
conditions, will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the
exemption.

V. Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the
safety record of Cliffs' steel coil drivers and their respective
trucks. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if
safety is being

compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA
will take immediate steps to revoke Cliff's renewal exemption.

John Van Steenburg,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-21233 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 68856-68857]
[DOCID:fr29de09-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1051]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel INFANT JESUS OF PRAGUE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel INFANT JESUS OF
PRAGUE as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on November
18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2009-1051 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking on
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel INFANT JESUS OF PRAGUE will be used for
offshore supply operations. The horizontal distance between the forward
and aft masthead lights may be 22'- 5''. Placing the aft masthead light
at the horizontal distance from the forward masthead light as required
by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section
84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light
location directly over the cargo deck where it would interfere with
loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: December 1, 2009.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-30932 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P