[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35557-35562]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81204; File No. SR-MRX-2017-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System
Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology

July 25, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On May 17, 2017, the Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend various Exchange rules in connection with a system migration to
Nasdaq, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') supported technology. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 5,
2017.\3\ On July 14, 2017, the Commission designated a longer period
for Commission action on the proposed rule change, until September 3,
2017.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80815 (May 30,
2017), 82 FR 25827 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81151 (July 14,
2017, 82 FR 33527 (July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest. As noted above,
the Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect
the MRX system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.\7\ In connection
this system migration, as discussed below, the Exchange intends to
adopt certain trading functionality currently utilized on Nasdaq
Exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ INET is utilized across Nasdaq's markets, including The
NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and
NASDAQ BX, Inc. (collectively, the ``Nasdaq Exchanges''). See
Notice, supra note 3, at 25827. The Commission also recently
approved Nasdaq ISE, LLC's (formerly International Securities
Exchange, LLC) (``ISE'') and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC's (formerly ISE
Gemini, LLC) migrations to INET. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 80225 (March 13, 2017), 82 FR 14243 (March 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-
2017-02); 80432 (April 11, 2017), 82 FR 18191 (April 17, 2017) (SR-
ISE-2017-03); 80011 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16,
2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-17); 80014 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10952
(February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-18).
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827. The Exchange anticipates
that it will begin implementation of the proposed rule changes in
the third quarter of 2017. See id. According to the Exchange, the
system migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis. The Exchange
will issue an alert to members in the form of an Options Trader
Alert to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and
the relevant dates. See id. The Exchange has also separately filed a
companion proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's opening
process in connection with the system migration to INET technology.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80937 (June 15, 2017), 82 FR
28113 (June 20, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-01). The Exchange proposes to
replace its current opening process at Rule 701 with Phlx's opening
process. See Phlx Rule 1017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Trading Halts

1. Cancellation of Quotes
    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to
conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule
1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) to
provide that during a halt the Exchange will maintain existing orders
on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the revision, during
the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes and, for such
orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications. Currently, the
Exchange maintains existing orders and quotes during a trading halt.
With respect to cancels and modifications during a trading halt, the
Exchange represents that the current process on MRX will not change
under the proposed rule change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing
orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt would provide
market participants with clarity as to the manner in which interests
will be handled by the system.\10\ The Exchange believes that, during a
trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting interests.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that that cancelling existing quotes during
a trading halt would provide market participants the opportunity to
update potentially stale quotes. Further, the Commission notes that the
Exchange will process cancels and modifications for orders as well as
quotes received during a halt. Finally, the Commission further notes
that the proposed treatment of quotes during a halt is consistent with
existing Phlx Rule 1047(f).
2. Limit Up-Limit Down
    The Exchange proposes to replace existing MRX Rule 703A (Trading
During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities) with
proposed MRX Rule 702(d).\12\ Specifically, proposed MRX Rule 702(d)
will provide that during a Limit State and Straddle State in the
underlying NMS stock \13\ the Exchange will not open an affected
option.\14\ However, provided the Exchange has opened an affected
option for trading, the Exchange will: (i) Reject Market Orders \15\
and notify members of the reason for such rejection; \16\ (ii) continue
to process Market Orders exposed at the NBBO, pursuant to Supplementary
Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901, pending in the system, and cancel such
Market Order if at the end of the exposure period the affected
underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State; \17\ and (iii) elect Stop
Orders if the condition as provided in MRX Rule 715(d) is met, and,
because such orders become Market Orders, cancel them back and notify
members of the reason for such rejection.\18\ Moreover, when the
security underlying an option class is in a Limit State or Straddle
State, the Exchange will suspend the maximum quotation spread
requirements for market maker quotes in MRX Rule 803(b)(4) and the
continuous quotation requirements in MRX Rule 804(e).\19\ Additionally,
the Exchange will not consider the time periods associated with Limit
States and Straddle States when evaluating whether a market maker has
complied with its continuous quotation requirements in MRX Rule
804(e).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange represents that proposed MRX Rule 702(d) is
similar to Phlx Rule 1047(d). See Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
    \13\ Proposed MRX Rule 702(d) states that capitalized terms used
in Rule 702(d) will have the same meaning as provided for in the
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608
of Regulation NMS, as it may be amended from time to time.
    \14\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(1). The Exchange states that
its rules do not currently address the opening rotation in the event
that the underlying NMS stock is open but has entered into a Limit
or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25828.
    \15\ For the definition of the term ``Market Orders,'' see MRX
Rule 715(a).
    \16\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2).
    \17\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(2). If the affected underlying
is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State after the exposure period,
the Market Order will be processed with normal handling. See id. The
Exchange currently cancels Market Orders pending in the system upon
initiation of a Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25828.
    \18\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(3). MRX currently does not
elect Stop Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit or
Straddle State. Under the proposal, the Exchange will elect Stop
Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit or Straddle
State, if conditions for such election are met; however, because
such orders become Market Orders, they will be cancelled back to the
member with a reason for such rejection. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25828.
    \19\ See proposed MRX Rule 702(d)(4).
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide
certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit or
Straddle States would impact the opening process as well as Market
Orders and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of
Market Orders (including elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to
potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of
significant volatility.\21\ The Commission also notes that processing
rather than cancelling existing Market Orders is reasonable because
these Market Orders are only pending in the system if they are exposed
at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901 and
would, in any case, be cancelled if at the end of the exposure period
the affected underlying is still in a Limit or Straddle State.\22\
Further, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to permit the
election of Stop Orders that are pending in the system during a Limit
or Straddle State, since, upon election, the orders would be cancelled
back to the members.\23\ Lastly, the Commission notes that proposed MRX
Rule 702(d)(4) is substantively identical to existing MRX Rule 703A(c),
which is being deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
    \23\ See id.

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

3. Auction Handling During a Trading Halt
    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the
impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First,
the Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 723 (Price Improvement
Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a
trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PIM''). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an
order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and
eligible interest is executed.\24\ The Exchange proposes to amend the
current process by terminating the auction and not executing eligible
interest when a trading halt occurs.\25\ Similarly, the Exchange also
proposes to amend to MRX Rule 716 (Block Trades) to state that, if a
trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the Block
Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism,
the Exchange will automatically terminate such auction without
execution.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
    \25\ See proposed MRX Rule 723(d)(5).
    \26\ See proposed subsections (c)(3), (d)(3)(iv), and (e)(2)(iv)
of MRX Rule 716. The Exchange represents that this proposed
amendment represents the current process on MRX and is generally
consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c). See Notice, supra note 3, at
25829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM
auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited
Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt
occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their
interest will be handled.\27\ The Exchange believes that, during a
trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market
participants with respect to resting interest.\28\ The Commission
believes that the proposed rule is consistent with the Act and provides
transparency and clarity regarding the handling of these orders during
a trading halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Market Order Spread Protection

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes
and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled Market
Order Spread Protection which will apply to Market Orders.\29\ Pursuant
to proposed MRX Rule 711(c), if the NBBO is wider than a preset
threshold at the time a Market Order is received by the Exchange, the
Exchange will reject the order. The Exchange will notify members of the
threshold with a notice, and, thereafter, will notify members of any
subsequent changes to the threshold.\30\ The Exchange represents that
the Market Order Spread Protection will be the same for all options
traded on the Exchange and is applicable to all members that submit
Market Orders.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange states that this mandatory feature is
currently offered on NOM to protect Market Orders from being
executed in very wide markets. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
See also NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829. The Exchange proposes
to initially set the threshold to $5, similar to the threshold set
on NOM. See id. The Exchange states that NOM set the differential at
$5 to match the maximum bid/ask differential permitted for quotes on
that exchange. See id. MRX also uses a similar $5 differential. See
id.
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the
proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks
associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions
at dislocated prices.\32\ The Commission also notes that the protection
is similar to a mandatory feature currently offered on NOM.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
    \33\ See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Acceptable Trade Range

    Today, MRX offers a Price Level Protection that places a limit on
the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell
(buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids (offers)
from other exchanges at any price for the options series.\34\ The
Exchange proposes to replace the current Price Level Protection with
Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range.\35\ The Exchange states that the
proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism designed to prevent the
system from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market
from moving beyond set thresholds.\36\ The system will calculate an
Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order
or quote will be allowed to execute.\37\ Upon receipt of a new order or
quote, the Acceptable Trade Range is calculated by taking the reference
price, plus or minus a value to be determined by the Exchange, where
the reference price is the National Best Bid (``NBB'') for sell orders/
quotes and the National Best Offer (``NBO'') for buy orders/quotes.
Accordingly, the Acceptable Trade Range is: the reference price - (x)
for sell orders/quotes; and the reference price + (x) for buy
orders.\38\ If an order or quote reaches the outer limit of the
Acceptable Trade Range (the ``Threshold Price'') without being fully
executed, then any unexecuted balance will be cancelled.\39\ The
Acceptable Trade Range will not be available for All-or-None
Orders.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; MRX Rule 714(b)(1).
    \35\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p). Unlike Phlx, MRX does not offer a
general continuous re-pricing mechanism. See id. Accordingly, the
Exchange states that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range will not
include the posting period functionality available today on Phlx.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830, n.15. The Exchange will not post
interest that exceeds the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range;
rather the interest will be cancelled. See Notice, supra note 3, at
25830. Orders that do not exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable
Trade Range will post to the order book and will reside on the order
book at such price until they are either executed in full or
cancelled by the member. See id.
    \36\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
    \37\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(i).
    \38\ The Exchange states that the Acceptable Trade Range
settings are tied to the option premium. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 25830, n.16. A table consisting of several steps based on the
premium of an option will be displayed on the Exchange Web site and
used to determine how far the market for a given option will be
allowed to move. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831. Updates to the
table would be announced via an Exchange alert, generally the prior
day. See id.
    \39\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii).
    \40\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(ii). Today, MRX's Price
Level Protection rule is also not available for All-or-None Orders.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830, n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range
at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.\41\ While the
Acceptable Trade Range settings will be tied to the option premium,
other factors will be considered when determining the exact
settings.\42\ For example, the Exchange states that acceptable ranges
may change if market-wide volatility is high or if overall market
liquidity is low based on historical trends.\43\ To ensure a well-
functioning market, the Exchange believes that different market
conditions may require adjustments to the threshold amounts from time
to time.\44\ Further, while the Acceptable Trade Range settings will
generally be the same across all options traded on the Exchange, MRX
proposes to set them separately based on characteristics of the
underlying security.\45\ For example, the Exchange has generally
observed that options subject to the Penny Pilot program quote with
tighter spreads than options not subject to the Penny Pilot.
Accordingly, the Exchange will set Acceptable Trade Ranges for three
categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot Options trading in one cent
increments for options trading at less than $3.00 and increments of
five cents for options trading at $3.00 or more; (2) Penny Pilot

Options trading in one-cent increments for all prices; and (3) Non-
Penny Pilot Options.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25830.
    \42\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
    \43\ See id.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See proposed MRX Rule 714(b)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should
prevent the system from experiencing dramatic price swings by
preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.\47\ The
Commission believes that the Acceptable Trade Range is reasonably
designed to prevent executions of orders and quotes at prices that are
significantly worse than the NBBO at the time of an order's submission
and may reduce the potential negative impacts of unanticipated
volatility in individual options. Further, the Commission notes that
the proposed Acceptable Trade Range is similar to an existing mechanism
on Phlx.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25835.
    \48\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25829; Phlx Rule 1080(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') order handling and opening obligations in MRX Rule
803(c).\49\ As described above, with the migration of MRX to the Nasdaq
INET architecture, the Exchange is adopting the Acceptable Trade Range
and opening rotation functionality currently offered on NOM and Phlx,
which do not contain similar requirements for the PMMs as in MRX Rule
803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ MRX Rule 803(c) provides that, in addition to the
obligations contained in Rule 803 for market makers generally, for
options classes to which a market maker is the appointed PMM, the
PMM shall have the responsibility to: (1) As soon as practical,
address Priority Customer Orders that are not automatically executed
pursuant to Rule 714(b)(1) in a manner consistent with its
obligations under Rule 803(b) by either (i) executing all or a
portion of the order at a price that at least matches the NBBO and
that improves upon the Exchange's best bid (in the case of a sell
order) or the Exchange's best offer (in the case of a buy order); or
(ii) releasing all or a portion of the order for execution against
bids and offers on the Exchange; and (2) initiate trading in each
series pursuant to Rule 701 (Trading Rotations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no
longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range
and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.\50\ The
Exchange states that its proposal to conform the Exchange's opening
process to Phlx Rule 1017 will result in an opening initiated by the
receipt of an appropriate number of valid width quotes by the PMM or
Competitive Market Maker, instead of an opening process initiated by a
PMM.\51\ Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed Acceptable Trade
Range functionality will continue to provide order protection to
members without imposing any PMM obligations.\52\ The Exchange further
represents that NOM and Phlx do not impose similar PMM order handling
and opening obligations.\53\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that
these changes are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also supra note 8.
    \51\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831-32. See also supra note
8.
    \52\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. The Exchange states
that Phlx does not currently have similar roles for a Specialist on
its market. See id.
    \53\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Back-Up PMM

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any MRX member that is
approved to act in the capacity of a PMM or an ``Alternative Primary
Market Maker'' may voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in an options
series in which it is quoting as a Competitive Market Maker
(``CMM'').\54\ With the technology migration, the Exchange believes
that a Back-Up PMM is no longer necessary because under INET the
Exchange will not utilize the order handling obligations present on the
Exchange today.\55\ The Exchange further represents that the proposed
new opening process obviates the importance of such a role because it
would no longer rely on a market maker to initiate the opening
process.\56\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that these changes
are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See MRX Rule 803, Supplementary Material .03.
    \55\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
    \56\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832. See also supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Market Maker Speed Bump

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 804 (Market Maker
Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk
functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection
mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an
options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during
a set time period (``Market Maker Speed Bump'').\57\ In addition, the
Exchange offers a market-wide risk protection that removes a market
maker's quotes across all classes if a number of curtailment events
occur (``Market-Wide Speed Bump'').\58\ MRX Rule 804(g) currently
requires that market makers set curtailment parameters for both the
Market Maker Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today, if a
market maker does not set these parameters, for each Market Maker Speed
Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump, the system rejects their
quotes.\59\ With the technology migration, the Exchange proposes to
provide default curtailment parameters, which will be determined by the
Exchange and announced to members.\60\ The Commission believes that
this change is consistent with the Act and notes that, although the
Exchange will establish default curtailment settings, market makers
will have discretion to set different curtailment settings appropriate
for their trading and risk tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See MRX Rule 804(g)(1).
    \58\ See MRX Rule 804(g)(2).
    \59\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25832.
    \60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Anti-Internalization

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to MRX
Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-internalization
rule. Today, MRX's functionality prevents Immediate-or-Cancel orders
entered by a market maker from trading with the market maker's own
quote.\61\ The Exchange proposes to replace this self-trade protection
with anti-internalization functionality currently offered on Phlx.\62\
The Exchange proposes to provide that quotes and orders entered by
market makers using the same member identifier will not be executed
against quotes and orders entered on the opposite side of the market by
the same market maker using the same member identifier. In such a case,
the system will cancel the resting quote or order back to the entering
party prior to execution. The proposed anti-internalization
functionality will not apply in any auction. The Exchange states that
this proposed functionality does not modify the duty of best execution
owed to public customer orders.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See id.
    \62\ See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).
    \63\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist
market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions
potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from
the same firm performing the same market making function.\64\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to
prevent the unwanted execution of quotes and orders entered

by market makers using the same member identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833, n.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Minimum Execution Quantity Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to
remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).\65\ The Exchange states
that members have not adopted this feature, and therefore proposes to
remove this order type.\66\ Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to
remove two references to minimum quantity orders in Supplementary
Material .02 to MRX Rule 713 and in Supplementary Material .04 to MRX
Rule 717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ A Minimum Quantity Order is an order that is initially
available for partial execution only for a specified number of
contracts or greater. A member may specify whether any subsequent
executions of the order must also be for the specified number of
contracts or greater, or if the balance may be executed as a regular
order. If all executions are to be for the specified number of
contracts or greater and the balance of the order after one or more
partial execution(s) is less than the minimum, such balance is
treated as all-or-none. See MRX Rule 715(q).
    \66\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that removing the minimum quantity order type
would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce the
complexity of its order types.\67\ The Exchange further represents that
members have not adopted this feature.\68\ Accordingly, the Commission
believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to remove references to the
minimum quantity order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
    \68\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Cancel and Replace Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to MRX
Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to memorialize how the Exchange system will
handle cancel and replace orders in connection with the Exchange's
technology migration to INET.\69\ Currently, Exchange members can send
a Cancel and Replace Order in one message, which allows the replacement
order to retain the time priority of the cancelled order, subject to
certain exceptions.\70\ However, currently the Exchange does not apply
price or other reasonability checks to the replacement order for all
Cancel and Replace Orders.\71\ For example, the Exchange notes that
currently, a Cancel and Replace Order which reduced the size of an
original order from 600 to 300 contracts would not be subject to price
or other reasonability checks.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See id.
    \70\ See id. The Exchange notes that, instead of sending a
Cancel and Replace Order, a Member can separately send a
cancellation message and a new order, for which the Exchange would
apply price or other reasonability checks, but the new order would
not retain the priority of the original order. See id. This behavior
will not change. See id.
    \71\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25833.
    \72\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to define the Cancel and Replace Order to
ensure that price and other reasonability checks are applied to Cancel
and Replace Orders.\73\ The Exchange proposes to define a Cancel and
Replace Order as a single message for the immediate cancellation of a
previously received order and the replacement of that order with a new
order. If the previously placed order is already partially filled or in
its entirety, the replacement order is automatically canceled or
reduced by the number of contracts that were executed. Additionally,
the replacement order will retain the priority of the cancelled order,
if the order posts to the order book, provided the price is not
amended, size is not increased, or in the case of Reserve Orders, size
is not changed. However, if the replacement portion of a Cancel and
Replace Order does not satisfy the system's price or other
reasonability checks the existing order will be cancelled and not
replaced.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See proposed MRX Rule 715, Supplementary Material .02.
    \74\ Price and reasonability checks that would be applied
include MRX Rule 710 (Minimum Trading Increments), MRX Rule 711(c)
(proposed Market Order Spread Protection) and MRX Rule 714(b)(2)
(Limit Order Price Protection). See Notice, supra note 3 at 25833,
n.40. The Exchange also notes that, as for other orders, the
Exchange may cancel an order because it does not satisfy a format or
other requirement specified in the Exchange's rules and
specifications. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that conducting price or other
reasonability checks for all Cancel and Replace Orders will validate
orders against current market conditions prior to proceeding with the
request to modify the order.\75\ The Exchange further believes that
memorializing Cancel and Replace Order handling will add transparency
to the Exchange's rules and reduce the potential for investor
confusion.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 25836.
    \76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that other exchanges with a similar order type
permit an order to retain priority if only the size of the order is
decremented.\77\ Accordingly, the Commission believes it is appropriate
for the Exchange to define Cancel and Replace Orders in the manner
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See id.; see Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. All-Or-None Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715(c) to provide that All-
Or-None Orders\78\ may only be entered into the Exchange's system with
a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.\79\ Currently, the
Exchange allows users to submit All-Or-None Orders with any time-in-
force designation. As proposed, an All-Or-None Order would be required
to be submitted as an Immediate-Or-Cancel Order and thus will either
execute in its entirety or be cancelled. Because All-Or-None Orders
will either be executed or cancelled, the Exchange also proposes to
remove language stating that All-Or-None Orders can be maintained in
the system in Supplementary Material .02 to MRX Rule 713 and to delete
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 717, which concerns the exposure of
non-marketable All-Or-None Orders.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ An All-Or-None Order is a limit or market order that is to
be executed in its entirety or not at all. See MRX Rule 715(c).
    \79\ An Immediate-Or-Cancel Order is a limit order that is to be
executed in whole or in part upon receipt, and any portion not so
executed is to be treated as cancelled. See MRX Rule 715(b)(3).
    \80\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that this change would remove uncertainty with
respect to the manner in which All-Or-None Orders would be handled in
the order book, because the All-Or-None Order would be canceled if it
cannot be immediately executed in its entirety.\81\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to require that
All-Or-None Orders be entered with a time-in-force designation of
Immediate-Or-Cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25837.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Delay of Implementation of Directed Orders

    Currently, MRX rules provide for the use of Directed Orders.\82\
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 811 (Directed Orders) to note
that this functionality will not be available as of a certain date in
the third quarter of 2017 to be announced in a notice. The Exchange
represents that it will recommence the Directed Orders functionality on
MRX within one year from the date of the filing of the proposed rule
change. Otherwise, the Exchange will file a rule proposal with the
Commission to remove these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See MRX Rule 811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it proposes to delay the
implementation of the Directed Order functionality on MRX to provide
the Exchange additional time to rebuild the required technology on the
new platform.\83\ The Exchange further represents that members have
been given adequate notice of the implementation dates and

that the Exchange will provide further notifications to members to
ensure clarity about the delay of implementation of these
functionalities.\84\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule
change helps ensure clarity about the delay of implementation of this
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 25836.
    \84\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\85\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MRX-2017-02) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15994 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 76336]
[DOCID:fr23de05-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:
    [70 FR 74850, December 16, 2005].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Announcement of Additional Meetings: Additional Meetings (Week of
December 19, 2005).
    Closed Meetings have been scheduled for Wednesday, December 21,
2005 at 9 a.m. and Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries may attend the Closed Meetings.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the
Closed Meetings.
    Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meetings in closed sessions and that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
December 21, 2005 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive
actions; and Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings
of an enforcement matter.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
December 22, 2005 will be: Institution of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 20, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-24477 Filed 12-21-05; 1:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:quit tabacco  A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 84 (Thursday, April 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23960-23961]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09131]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9998-24-OMS]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of South Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) approval of the State of South Carolina's request to revise/
modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic
reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of April 30, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley M. Miller, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2824T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
2908<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to

paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic
documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts.
Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government
agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports
under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or
modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D
provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the
electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local
government will use to implement the electronic reporting.
Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D
provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to
allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state,
tribe or local government in place of procedures available under
existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application
submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state,
tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement
the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the
application and will use electronic document receiving systems that
meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On April 15, 2019, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC) submitted an application titled South
Carolina e-Permitting for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved
programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA
reviewed SCDHEC's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs
and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the
standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications
set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR
3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve South Carolina's
request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow
electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63, 64, 70, 122, 125,
233, 240, 241, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262, 263,
264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 272, 273, 279, 280, and 403 is being published
in the Federal Register:

    Part 63: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories (NESHAP MACT/Clean Air Act Title Ill) Reporting
under CFR 61, 63 & 65 Part 70: State Operating Permit Programs (Clean
Air Act Title V) Part 123: EPA-Administered Permit Programs: The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
    Part 233: ``404'' State Program Regulations (Ocean Dumping)
Reporting under CFR 233
    Part 239: Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of
Adequacy (RCRA Subtitle C)
    Part 271: Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Programs (RCRA Subtitle C)
    Part 281: Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements
for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
    Part 403: General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution
    SCDHEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Dated: April 24, 2020.
Yvonne Lee,
Acting Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2020-09131 Filed 4-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 10140]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-485-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Texas Gas Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Texas
Gas Abandonment Project (Project), proposed by Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC (Texas Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Texas Gas requests
authorization to abandon by transfer to a corporate affiliate portions
of its existing looped pipeline system that has three different
designations (Mainline Systems 26-2 and 26-1, and the Bastrop-Eunice
System 26-1 pipeline); and auxiliary and associated facilities in
numerous counties in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
activities associated with the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff
concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    In total, the Texas Gas Abandonment Project would consist of the
abandonment of about 567.8 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline. Texas
Gas would also abandon by transfer all ancillary and associated
facilities such as valves, and cathodic protection, and abandon minor
facilities at 142 sites across the systems, all of which would require
ground disturbing activities.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners; newspapers and
libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In
addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of
the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before March 17,
2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the project docket number (CP13-485-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting
brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
485). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: February 14, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03800 Filed 2-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27675-27678]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12451]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86066; File No. SR-C2-2019-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend the Fat Finger Check for Simple Orders in Rule 6.14

June 7, 2019.
    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 June 6, 2019, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
amend the fat finger check for with respect to simple orders in Rule
6.14. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])

* * * * *

Rules of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *

Rule 6.14. Order and Quote Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk
Controls

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) All Orders.
    (1) Limit Order Fat Finger Check. If a User submits a buy (sell)
limit order to the System with a price that is more than a buffer

amount above (below) the NBO (NBB) for simple orders or the SNBO
(SNBB) for complex orders, the System cancels or rejects the order.
The Exchange determines a default buffer amount; however, a User may
establish a higher or lower amount than the Exchange default.
    (A) For simple buy (sell) orders, the Exchange may determine to
apply this check on a class-by-class basis and not apply it to limit
orders entered prior to the conclusion of the RTH [O]opening auction
[P]process. If the check applies prior to the conclusion of the RTH
[O]opening auction [P]process, it uses [the midpoint of the prior
trading day's closing NBBO (prior to 9:30 a.m.) or](i) the last
disseminated NBBO on that trading day, or (ii) the midpoint of the
prior trading day's closing NBBO, if no NBBO has been disseminated
on that trading day[(if there is one, after 9:30 a.m.)]. The
Exchange or User, as applicable, may establish a different default
amount prior to the conclusion of the RTH [O]opening auction
[P]process than it does after trading is open. If the check applies
prior to the conclusion of the O]RTH opening auction [P]process, it
does not apply (i) if there is a corporate action impacting the
corporate stock price, (ii) if there is no NBBO from the prior
trading day, (iii) to orders with origin code M or N, or (iv) to GTC
and GTD orders that reenter the Book from the prior trading session
[day].
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 proposed rule change amends the fat finger check with respect
to simple orders in Rule 6.14. Current Rule 6.14(c)(1) states if a User
submits a buy (sell) limit order to the System with a price that is
more than a buffer amount above (below) the national best offer
(``NBO'') (national best bid (``NBB'')) for simple orders, the System
cancels or rejects the order.\5\ Under current Rule 6.14(c)(1)(A) for
simple orders, the Exchange may determine to apply this check on a
class-by-class basis and not apply it to limit orders entered prior to
the conclusion of the opening auction process. If the check applies
prior to the conclusion of the opening auction process, it uses the
midpoint of the prior trading day's closing NBBO (prior to 9:30 a.m.)
or the last disseminated NBBO (if there is one, after 9:30 a.m.).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange determines a default buffer amount; however, a
User may establish a higher or lower amount than the Exchange
default.
    \6\ Current Rule 6.14(c)(1)(A) also states that the Exchange or
User, as applicable, may establish a different default amount prior
to the conclusion of the opening auction process than it does after
trading is open. If the check applies prior to the conclusion of the
Opening Process, it does not apply (i) if there is a corporate
action impacting the corporate stock price, (ii) if there is no NBBO
from the prior trading day, (iii) to orders with origin code M
(Market-Maker) or N (away market-maker), or (iv) to good-til-
cancelled (``GTC'') or good-til-day (``GTD'') orders that reenter
the Book from the prior trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently adopted a global trading hours (``GTH'')
trading session, which will occur from 8:30 to 9:15 a.m. Eastern Time,
which the Exchange intends to implement on June 17, 2019.\7\ For
classes that trade during the GTH trading session, there may be an NBBO
disseminated prior to 9:30 a.m., as well as a GTH opening auction
process. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to update the fat finger
check for simple orders to reflect a GTH trading session. Because the
GTH and regular trading hours (``RTH'') trading sessions will each have
an opening auction process,\8\ the Exchange now proposes to amend Rule
6.14(c)(1)(A) to specify that if the check applies prior to the
conclusion of the RTH opening auction process (therefore, from the
beginning of the GTH opening process \9\ through the RTH opening
process), it uses the last disseminated NBBO during that trading day
(which accounts for NBBOs disseminated during GTH),\10\ or the midpoint
of the prior trading day's closing NBBO, if no NBBO has been
disseminated during that trading day. The Exchange notes that it is
deleting the language that refers to using the prior trading day's
closing NBBO if the check applies prior to 9:30 a.m., as well as
language that refers to an NBBO after 9:30 a.m., to accommodate the new
GTH session. For example, if it is 9:25 a.m. the check would use the
last disseminated NBBO from the GTH session (i.e., on that trading
day), and, if no NBBO has been disseminated on that trading day then
the System would pull the midpoint of the prior trading day's closing
NBBO, as it currently does today. It also proposes to amend Rule
6.14(c)(1)(A) to state that if the check applies prior to the
conclusion of the RTH opening auction process, it does not apply to
good-til-cancelled (``GTC'') and good-til-date (``GTD'') orders that
reenter the Book from the prior trading session. This proposed change
accounts for a prior trading session instead of the trading day because
the Exchange will use the same Book for all trading sessions, and thus
any GTC or GTD orders that do not trade during GTH may become eligible
for trading during RTH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85788 (May 6, 2019),
84 FR 20673 (May 10, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's
Opening Process and Add a Global Trading Hours Session for DJX
Options) (SR-C2-2019-009).
    \8\ See Rule 6.11 which provides for the opening auction
processes for GTH and RTH.
    \9\ The Exchange notes this includes the queuing period as
defined under Rule 6.11 which provides for the opening auction
process.
    \10\ See Rule 1.1 which states that a trading day includes both
trading sessions on that day. The Exchange also notes that it is
amending the term ``orders'' to state ``buy (sell) orders'' in Rule
6.14(c)(1)(A) to mirror the same language used in Rule 6.14(c)(1),
as well as the term ``Opening Process'' to ``opening auction
process'' which is consistent with the verbiage used throughout Rule
6.11 (Opening Auction Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is substantially
similar to the current rule, and merely proposes to update language in
connection with the implementation of the GTH trading session,
specifying to which opening auction process the check under Rule
6.14(c)(1)(A) will apply, and accounting for the fact that there may be
an NBBO disseminated prior to 9:30 a.m. for classes that will trade
during the GTH trading session.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that by updating the fat
finger check for simple orders to account for the recently adopted GTH
trading session, the proposed rule change serves to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. As described above, the proposed change is substantially
similar to the way in which the current fat finger check for simple
orders functions, and merely accounts for the fact that there will be
two trading sessions on the Exchange, each with an opening auction
process and one of which will occur, and may disseminate an NBBO,
before 9:30 a.m. Therefore, the Exchange believes that by amending rule
language to specify that the fat finger check under Rule 6.14(c)(1)(A)
will apply prior to the conclusion of the RTH opening auction process
and by updating language to reflect the earlier GTH session time and
potential NBBO dissemination during that session in connection with the
fat finger check, it will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market, thereby protecting investors, by
increasing transparency of the Exchange's fat finger price protection
mechanism as it relates to the earlier GTH trading session.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues, but rather to update a
current price protection mechanism in connection with the addition of a
GTH trading session. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change to update the fat finger check as it relates to the GTH
trading session will impose any burden on intramarket competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act because it will apply in the same manner to all Users' limit orders
prior to the conclusion of the RTH opening auction process. The
Exchange notes that a User may choose to establish a different default
amount prior to the conclusion of the RTH opening auction process.
Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impose any burden on intermarket competition that that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because the proposed change merely updates a price protection mechanism
already in place on the Exchange and applicable only to trading on the
Exchange.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
substantially similar to the way in which the current fat finger check
for simple orders functions, and merely accounts for the fact that
there will be two trading sessions on the Exchange (each with an
opening auction process and one of which will occur, and may
disseminate an NBBO, before 9:30 a.m.), and does not raise any new or
novel issues. For this reason, the Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposal as operative
upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2019-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or
edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2019-015
and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12451 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18963-18965]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0342; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model MD900 helicopters. The
existing AD requires a visual inspection, and if necessary, an eddy
current inspection of the main rotor lower hub assembly (lower hub) for
a crack. If a crack exists, the AD requires replacing the lower hub
with an airworthy lower hub before further flight. Because that AD was
immediately effective, we did not include in its requirements certain
long-term actions that did not necessitate adoption prior to public
comment. This proposed AD would require those long-term actions. This
proposed AD would require the same inspections as the existing AD but
would also require recurring inspections and replacing the lower hub
with an airworthy lower hub. We are proposing this AD to detect a crack
in the lower hub and prevent failure of the lower hub and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Send comments 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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact MD
Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378, fax
480-346-6813, or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may review copies
of service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5348; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On June 21, 2011, we issued AD 2011-14-05, amendment 39-16740 (76
FR 41662, July 15, 2011) for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters with a lower
hub, part number 900R2101008-107, with serial numbers that begin with
5009. That AD requires, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or
during the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, visually
inspecting the sides and bottom of the area between the arms for the
centering bearing and the areas adjacent to the bushings of the lower
hub assembly for a crack. If a crack exists, before further flight,
replace the lower hub with an airworthy lower hub. If there is no crack
as a result of the visual inspection, eddy current inspect the lower
hub for a crack. If a crack exists, before further flight, replace the
lower hub with an airworthy hub. The AD requires an inspector qualified
to ASNT Level II or equivalent to perform the nondestructive eddy
current inspection of the lower hub. That AD was prompted by cracks
found on four lower hubs. We issued that AD to detect a crack in the
lower hub and prevent failure of the lower hub and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    When we issued AD 2011-14-05 (76 FR 41662, July 15, 2011), we
intentionally did not include certain long-term actions (a 300-hour
repetitive inspection of the lower hub and a requirement to replace the
lower hub within three years). We are including these actions in this
proposed AD to allow public comments before any adoption of the long-
term proposals.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated January 14, 2011
(SB). The SB specifies an initial 100-hour and recurring 300-hour
visual and eddy current inspections of the lower hub for a crack and,
if a crack exists, replacement of the lower hub with an airworthy lower
hub. The SB requires the inspections at the stated intervals or during
the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. The SB also
specifies replacing the lower hub within three years.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require the same inspections currently
required by AD 2011-14-05 (76 FR 41662, July 15, 2011), but would
require that those inspections also be performed at intervals not to
exceed 300 hours TIS or during the next annual inspection, whichever
occurs first. This proposed AD would also require, within three years,
replacing the lower hub with an airworthy hub not included in the
Applicability section of this AD. This replacement would provide
terminating action for this AD's requirements.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    This proposed AD would not require you to contact the manufacturer
nor to return the lower hub assembly with a certain report.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 12 helicopters of
U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
     Visually inspecting the hub. We estimate that would take
one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85
and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.
     Eddy current inspecting the lower hub. We estimate that
would take one work-hour at $85 an hour, for a total cost per
helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $1,020 for the fleet.
     Replacing the lower hub. We estimate that would take 11
work-hours at $85 an hour for a total labor cost of $935, and that
parts would cost $12,480 per hub, for a total cost of $13,415 per
helicopter and a total cost of $160,980 for the fleet.
     The total of all of the costs listed for U.S. operators
would be $163,020, assuming that the lower hubs for the entire fleet
would get replaced.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII:

Aviation Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2011-14-05, Amendment 39-16740 (76 FR 41662, July 15, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI): Docket No. FAA-2012-0342; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-028-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to MDHI Model MD900 helicopters with main rotor
lower hub assembly (lower hub) part number 900R2101008-107, with
serial numbers beginning with 5009, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD is prompted by the determination that a certain
manufacturer had incorrectly inserted flanged bushings into the
lower hub bore. This condition could result in failure of the lower
hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Other Affected ADs.

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-14-05, Amendment 39-16740 (76 FR
41662, July 15, 2011).

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or during the next
annual inspection, whichever occurs first, unless done within the
last 200 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300
hours TIS or during the next annual inspection, whichever occurs
first:
    (i) Visually inspect the sides and bottom of the area between
the arms for the centering bearing and the areas adjacent to the
bushings of the lower hub assembly for a crack. If there is a crack,
before further flight, replace the lower hub with an airworthy lower
hub.
    (ii) If the lower hub is not replaced as a result of the visual
inspection required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD, eddy current
inspect the lower hub for a crack by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 2.A(2) through 2.A.(10)., of MD Helicopters
Inc. Service Bulletin SB900-117, dated January 14, 2011 (SB). If
there is a crack, before further flight, replace the lower hub with
an airworthy hub.
    (2) The eddy current inspection required by paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
of this AD must be done by a Level II technician with ASNT-TC-1A,
CEN EN 4179, MIL-STD-410, NAS410, or equivalent certification in
eddy current inspections. The technician must have done an eddy
current inspection in the last 12 months.
    (3) Within 3 years, replace the lower hub with an airworthy
lower hub not included in the Applicability section of this AD. This
replacement is terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(LAACO), FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact MD
Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd. Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734, telephone 1-800-388-3378,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. You may
review copies of this information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor
Head.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7535 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 16, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1998-3844

________________________________________________________________________
______________

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

Application of     NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,  filed  2/18/04 to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, and Punta Cana, Dominican
Republic, and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate
and exemption authority.

Applicant rep:   Megan Rae Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   March 16, 2004,  through
March 16, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the overall state of
aviation relations between the United States and the Dominican Republic.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	  XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

____________________________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted Northwest is
subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption
shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United
States and the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in
the award of the route integration authority requested should be
construed as conferring upon Northwest rights (including fifth-freedom
intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier
entry is limited unless Northwest notifies the Department of its intent
to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed
any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Northwest’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Northwest,
the holding of such authority by route integration will not be
considered as providing any preference for Northwest in a competitive
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

2

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) 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, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI 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; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003


[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74276-74277]
[DOCID:fr31de07-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-33-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

December 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 10, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed an
abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate
of public convenience and necessity to construct, install, own,
operate, and maintain a new 4,740 horsepower compressor station and two
miles of 20-inch diameter pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
(Dominion Hub I Project) for the purpose of transporting up to 200,000
Dth per day of new gas supplies received from proposed Rockies Express
Pipeline LLC facilities to a new interconnection with Texas Eastern
Transmission Company LP. DTI proposes to charge a discounted, fixed
reservation charge for transportation from primary receipt points to
the primary delivery point and requests a predetermination that rolled-
in rate treatment for the project is appropriate.
    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to
Matthew R. Bley, Manager, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219,
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER> and e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of

intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit the

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Comment Date: January 10, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25325 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P