[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22166-22168]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0263; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-12-AD;
Amendment 39-17416; AD 2013-07-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Rotax
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Rotax 912 F2; 912 F3; 912 F4; 912 S2; 912
S3; 912 S4; 914 F2; 914 F3; and 914 F4 reciprocating engines. This AD
requires a one-time visual inspection for excessive oil deposits or
carbon deposits on the No. 2 and No. 3 spark plug center and grounding
electrodes, and if found, replacement of the cylinder head before
further flight. This AD was prompted by a report of certain No. 2 and
No. 3 cylinder heads not manufactured to proper specification. We are
issuing this AD to prevent excessive oil consumption, which could
result in an in-flight engine shutdown, forced landing, and damage to
the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 30, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria, or go to: http://www.FLYROTAX.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0055-E, dated March 6, 2013
(referred to hereinafter as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a production test run, a non-compliance of the installed
cylinder head assembly of cylinder No. 2 and 3 (\2/3\) was detected,
which may result in a latent defect on a limited number of engines.
The affected cylinder heads may not have been manufactured in
accordance with the specification.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an
oil leak in the intake channel in the area of the valve guide. The
affected non-conforming cylinder heads may have small machined
through holes, which can increase the oil consumption and can lead
to oil starvation, possibly resulting in engine stoppage or in-
flight engine

shutdown and forced landing, with consequent risk of damage to the
aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG has issued Rotax Aircraft Engines ASB
No. ASB-912-062, Revision 1 and ASB-914-044, Revision 1 (combined into
one document), dated March 5, 2013. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of
Austria, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This proposed AD would require a one-time visual
inspection for excessive oil deposits or carbon deposits on the No. 2
and No. 3 spark plug center and grounding electrodes, and if found,
replacement of the cylinder head before further flight. Any excess
indicates the cylinder head is not manufactured to proper specification
and is leaking oil into the combustion chamber.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the short compliance time requirement. Therefore, we determined that
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0263; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NE-12-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 above, I certify this AD:
    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); and
    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 a regulatory 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2013-07-12 BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG (formerly BRP-Rotax GmbH &
Co KG, Bombardier-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG, and Bombardier-Rotax GmbH):
Amendment 39-17416; Docket No. FAA-2013-0263; Directorate Identifier
2013-NE-12-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 30,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following BRP Powertrain GmbH & Co KG
Rotax reciprocating engines:
    (1) Rotax 912 F2; 912 F3; and 912 F4, from serial number (S/N)
4,413,013 up to S/N 4,413,017 inclusive.
    (2) Rotax 912 S2; 912 S3; and 912 S4, from S/N 4,924,468 up to
S/N 4,924,491 inclusive.
    (3) Rotax 914 F2; 914 F3; and 914 F4, from S/N 4,421,156 up to
S/N 4,421,169 inclusive.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of certain No. 2 and No. 3
cylinder heads not manufactured to proper specification. The
cylinder heads may have an oil leak in the intake channel in the
area of the valve guide. There is the possibility that the heads
have small machined through holes, which can

increase the oil consumption. We are issuing this AD to prevent
excessive oil consumption, which could result in an in-flight engine
shutdown, forced landing, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 5 flight hours or 20 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a one-time visual
inspection of the center and grounding electrodes of both top and
bottom spark plugs on cylinder 2, and cylinder 3, for unusual
deposits (excessive carbon or oil). Any excess indicates the
cylinder head is not manufactured to proper specification and is
leaking oil into the combustion chamber.
    (2) Before further flight, replace cylinder heads found to be
not manufactured to proper specification.
    (3) From the effective date of this AD, do not install any
engine listed in the applicability of this AD on an airplane, unless
the engine has been inspected and, depending on the findings,
affected cylinder heads have been replaced as required by this AD.

(f) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, unusual deposits (excessive carbon
or oil) is when:
    (1) Carbon is a visual buildup of dark carbon deposits on the
center and grounding electrodes as well as the immediate surrounding
area, and
    (2) Excessive oil is a visual buildup indicated by the presence
of oil on the center and grounding electrodes as well as the
immediate surrounding area, giving a wet appearance.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Frederick Zink,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0055-E, dated March 6, 2013, and BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co KG Rotax Aircraft Engines Alert Service
Bulletin No. ASB-912-062, Revision 1 and ASB-914-044, Revision 1
(combined into one document), dated March 5, 2013, for related
information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria, or go to: http://www.FLYROTAX.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 4, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08460 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 771]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application

December 28, 2006.
Southeast Supply Header, LLC Docket Nos. CP07-45-000
Southeast Supply Header, LLC Docket Nos. CP07-44-000
Southern Natural Gas Company
Southeast Supply Header, LLC Docket Nos. CP07-46-000
Southeast Supply Header, LLC Docket Nos. CP07-47-000

    Take notice that on December 18, 2006 Southeast Supply Header, LLC
(SESH) filed an application in Docket No. CP07-45-000, requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section 7
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Subpart A of Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations authorizing the Applicants to construct, own,
operate, and maintain a new 269-mile natural gas pipeline system
commencing in the area of the Perryville Hub near Delhi, Louisiana,
continuing in a southeasterly direction through Mississippi and
Alabama, and terminating near Coden, Alabama (SESH Project). In
addition, SESH requests that the Commission issue to SESH: (i) A
blanket certificate in Docket No. CP07-46-000 authorizing SESH to
construct, operate, and abandon certain facilities under Part 157,
Subpart F of the Commission's regulations; (ii) a blanket certificate
in Docket No. CP07-47-000 authorizing SESH to transport natural gas, on
an open access and self-implementing basis, under Part 284, Subpart G
of the Commission's regulations; and (iii) authorizations necessary to
charge initial recourse rates for certain services to be rendered by
SESH.
    Also take notice that on December 18, 2006, SESH and Southern
Natural Gas Company (Southern Natural) filed with the Commission, in
Docket No. CP07-44-000, for authorization under section 7 of the NGA
and part 157, subpart A of the Commission's regulations to construct,
own and operate certain jointly owned facilities which comprise a
portion of the SESH Project (Joint Segment).
    The application for SESH's and Southern Natural's proposals are
more fully described as set forth in the applications that are on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filings
may be also viewed on the Web 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any initial questions regarding these applications should be
directed to Brian D. O'Neill, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On May 30, 2006, the Commission staff granted SESH's request to
utilize the Pre-Filing process and assigned Docket No. PF06-28-000 to
staff activities involving the SESH Project. Now, as of the filing of
this application on December 18, 2006, the Pre-Filing Process for this
project has ended. From this time forward, these proceedings will be
conducted in Dockets No. CP07-44-000, CP07-45-000, CP07-46 -000, and
CP07-47-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9
and to ensure compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the
Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review within 90 days of the date of this Notice. The Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for SESH's and Southern
Natural's proposal. The Notice will also alert other agencies of the
requirement to complete necessary reviews and authorizations within 90
days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    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.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: January 18, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22671 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29696]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3519-006]

Beaver Valley Power Company; Beaver Valley Power Company, LLC;
Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed April 24, 2015,\1\ William B. Conway, Jr.,
Counsel for Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (EGPNA),\2\ informed
the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Patterson
Hydro Project, FERC No. 3519, originally issued June 30, 1982,\3\ has
been transferred to Beaver Valley Power Company, LLC, an affiliate of
Enel Green Power. The project is located on the Beaver River in Beaver
County, Pennsylvania. The transfer of an exemption does not require
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Seventeen other exempted projects which are to be
transferred were included in the April 24, 2015 letter. These
exemptions will be handled under separate proceedings.
    \2\ Enel Green Power North America, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enel Green Power. Enel Green Power is a well-
capitalized publicly traded company.
    \3\ 19 FERC ] 62,570, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Beaver Valley Power Company, LLC is now the exemptee of the
Patterson Hydro Project, FERC No. 3519. All correspondence should be
forwarded to: Beaver Valley Power Company, LLC, c/o Enel Green Power
North America, Inc., Attn: General Counsel, 1 Tech Drive, Suite 220,
Andover, MA 01810.

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12471 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Revised Projected Percent Crop Treated for Insecticide Bifenthrin ( PC 128825) on Seven Crops FROM: Alan Halvorson, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: Barbara Madden MUIERB Registration Division ( 7505P)

I. SUMMARY This memorandum replaces previous projected percent crop treated ( PPCT) estimates for bifenthrin on collards, kale, mustard greens and sweet potatoes with PPCTs each of 100%. In addition, it provides suggested Federeal Register ( FR) language for the previously submitted PPCT estimates for dry beans/ peas, potatoes and okra. Tabulated biological justifications/ comments, provided by Angel Chir, entomologist with BEAD, give both explanations for these PPCT replacements as well as background for the proposed FR language. In the final analysis, BEAD has determined that there are no factors that clearly indicate that the actual PCTs for bifenthrin on dry beans/ peas, potatoes and okra in the next five years will exceed the estimated PPCT provided for bifenthrin on these crops. Below is the recommended boilerplate FR language, as well as the tabulated background information on all seven crops. This memorandum has been reviewed by Jihad Alsadek, an economist with BEAD,

II. FR LANGUAGE EPA estimates PPCT for a new pesticide use by assuming that the percent crop treated ( PCT) during the pesticide's initial five years of use on a specific use site will not exceed the average PCT of the market leader ( i. e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of the same pesticide types ( i. e., the dominant miticide on the use site is selected for comparison with the new miticide). The PCTs included in the average may be each for the same pesticide or for different pesticides since the same or different pesticides may dominate for each year selected. Typically, EPA uses USDA/ NASS as the source for the PCT data because they are publicly available. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/ NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and calculates the estimated PCT.

This estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader, is appropriate for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. This method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new pesticide produces a high end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. The predominant factors that generally can be analyzed based on readily available information and that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be exceeded are whether there are concerns with pest pressures as indicated in emergency exemption requests or other readily available information, whether the new pesticide controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant pesticide( s) and/ or whether the new pesticide has a shorter post harvest interval ( PHI).

All such relevant information currently available has been considered for bifenthrin on dry beans/ peas, potatoes and okra, and it unlikely that actual PCT for bifenthrin will exceed the estimated PPCT for bifenthrin on each of these three crops during the next five years mainly because of the relatively longer PHI of bifenthrin relative to each of the respective leading insectide( s).

CONCLUSION See the Appendix for both for justifications for replacing previous PPCT estimates for collards, kale, mustard greens and sweet potatoes with estimates of 100 percent and for background information for the above suggested FR language. APPENDIX Biologist Review of projections of bifenthrin PCT for seven new uses June 8, 2006 New use Market leader Could market leader's PCT be exceeded? Justification/ Comments Bt Yes Bt is narrow spectrum ( certain lepidopterous larvae) and is slow acting relative to bifenthrin. Bifenthrin is broad spectrum. Bt has a PHI of 0 days, vs. 7 days for bifenthrin, but this advantage would only affect control of lep larvae. Collards, kale, and mustard greens ( leafy brassicas)

Mevinphos n/ a All U. S. uses have been cancelled. Only import tolerances left Dry beans/ peas Dimethoate No Bifenthrin has broader action spectrum than dimethoate, but bifenthrin's PHI is 14 days vs. 0 for dimethoate. Potatoes Imidacloprid No Bifenthrin and imidacloprid are both broad spectrum. However, imidacloprid can be used both as a soil insecticide before, during, and shortly after planting ( no PHI applies here) or as a foliar ( PHI: 7 days). The longer proposed PHI for bifenthrin ( 21 days) would limit its usefulness relative to imidacloprid. Okra Carbaryl No Proposed bifenthrin label includes many more target pests ( 17) than carbaryl ( 2). However, the PHI for bifenthrin is 7 days, while for carbaryl it is only 3 days. Sweet potatoes Chlorpyrifos Yes There are Section 18 uses for bifenthrin in Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Chlorpyrifos is used as a preplant treatment, but is only effective for 4 6 weeks, whereas the most critical period for root production is the last 30 50 days. Chlorpyrifos will have dissipated by this time. Also, target pests have developed resistance to available foliar insecticides. Bifenthrin can be applied as an at plant treatment or, much later, as a foliar treatment. Chlorpyrifos has 125 day PHI vs. a 21 day PHI for bifenthrin. Both chemicals target the same pest complex ( soil borne beetles).


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1058-1062]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82437; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2017-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Risk Controls and Modify Rules 21.1, 21.10, and 21.17 in
Connection With Technology Migration of Cboe Exchanges

January 3, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 21, 2017, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to update Rule 21.1, Rule 21.10, and
Rule 21.17 to make modifications to the Exchange's rules and
functionality applicable to the Exchange's options platform (``EDGX
Options'') in preparation for the technology migration of the
Exchange's affiliated options exchanges onto the same technology as the
Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange and its affiliates Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.
(``BYX''), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), and Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX'') received approval to affect a merger (the ``Merger'') of
the Exchange's then-current indirect parent company, Bats Global
Markets, Inc., with Cboe Global Markets f/k/a CBOE Holdings, Inc.
(``Cboe''), the direct parent of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'')
and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2 Options'', and together with the
Exchange, BZX, and Cboe Options the ``Cboe Affiliated Exchanges'').\5\
The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain system
functionality, retaining only intended differences between the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges,

in the context of a technology migration. Thus, the proposals set forth
below are intended to add certain functionality to the Exchange's
System \6\ that is more similar to functionality offered by Cboe
Options and C2 Options in order to ultimately provide a consistent
technology offering for market participants who interact with the Cboe
Affiliated Exchanges. Although the Exchange intentionally offers
certain features that differ from those offered by its affiliates and
will continue to do so, the Exchange believes that offering similar
functionality to the extent practicable will reduce potential confusion
for Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79585 (December 16,
2016), 81 FR 93988 (December 22, 2016) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-68; SR-
BatsBYX-2016-29; SR-BatsEDGA-2016-24; SR-BatsEDGX-2016-60). The
Exchange notes that BYX and EDGA are also affiliated exchanges but
do not operate options platforms and thus the integration described
in this proposal is inapplicable to such exchanges.
    \6\ The ``System'' is the automated trading system used by EDGX
Options for the trading of options contracts. See Rule 16.1(a)(59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt periodic but relatively minor
changes to functionality in order to reduce risk in connection with the
technology migration described above; this proposal is related to two
such proposed changes. First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain
risk functionality in Rule 21.17, which is based on functionality on
Cboe Options, C2 Options and/or the Exchange's functionality applicable
to complex orders. The Exchange notes that it also proposes to make a
related change to Rule 21.1 to eliminate functionality that overlaps
with the proposed risk functionality. Second, the Exchange proposes to
modify Rule 21.10 to allow it to provide additional information on
transaction reports.
Risk Controls
    The Exchange currently provides certain controls to Users \7\ of
EDGX Options pursuant to Rule 21.16, which describes the Exchange's
``Risk Monitor Mechanism,'' and Rule 21.20, which describes the
Exchange's functionality for complex orders. In addition, the Exchange
provides a variety of optional risk controls to all Exchange Users
pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.10, including
various controls related to the price of an order.\8\ The Exchange
proposes to adopt various risk controls currently offered by Cboe
Options, C2 Options, and/or the Exchange with respect to complex orders
and to codify such risk controls in Rule 21.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``User'' means any Options Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the Exchange's
System (as defined below) pursuant to Rule 11.3. See Rule
16.1(a)(63).
    \8\ See Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policy .01; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67266 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR
39300 (July 2, 2012) (SR-EDGX-2012-21) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to New
Market Access Risk Management Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 21.17 currently permits the Exchange to share a User's risk
settings with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of
the User, which is a provision that the Exchange does not propose to
modify. Rule 21.17 does not currently describe any applicable risk
settings. As noted above, though certain risk settings offered for
Users of EDGX Options are codified in Rule 21.16, other optional risk
settings offered by the Exchange are more generally described in
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.10 and have been described in
other filings previously made by the Exchange.\9\ The Exchange proposes
to provide more specificity in proposed Rule 21.17 regarding the risk
settings the Exchange proposes to implement for EDGX Options, which is
consistent with the approach taken by Cboe Options and C2 Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, the Exchange proposes to adopt various numeric
values that would apply to the risk settings offered by the Exchange.
Consistent with other rules of the Exchange,\10\ the Exchange proposes
to maintain all numeric values established by the Exchange pursuant to
Rule 21.17 in publicly available specifications and/or published in a
Regulatory Circular. Further, as a general matter, the proposed risk
settings would be applied to all orders and quotes received by EDGX
Options rather than optionally configured and enabled by Users. Thus,
proposed Rule 21.17 would explicitly state that unless otherwise
specified, the price protections in the Rule, including the numeric
values established by the Exchange, may not be disabled or adjusted.
Below are descriptions of the specific risk settings proposed by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Interpretation and Policies .04(c)(1), .04(e),
.04(f) and .06 to Rule 21.20, which refer to various risk control
values offered by the Exchange with respect to complex orders that
are communicated to members of the Exchange via specifications and/
or Regulatory Circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Market
Order NBBO Width Protection. As proposed, if a User submits a Market
Order \11\ to the System when the NBBO \12\ width is greater than x% of
the midpoint of the NBBO, subject to minimum and maximum dollar values
established by the Exchange, the System will reject or cancel back to
the User the Market Order. The Exchange proposes to establish ``x'' and
the minimum and maximum values on a class-by-class basis. The proposed
Market Order NBBO Width Protection is based on and similar to the
Market-Width Parameter set forth in C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(1).\13\ In
particular, similar to C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(1), the Exchange would
reject or cancel Market Orders when the width of the NBBO is greater
than an acceptable range and would establish the numeric values that
would ultimately determine acceptable quote widths on a class-by-class
basis. However, in contrast to C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(1), the Exchange
does not propose to set forth specific boundaries for quote widths
within the proposed rule. The Exchange believes that it needs
flexibility to modify acceptable quote widths based on experience with
the risk control and Users would always have access to the applicable
settings in the Exchange's publicly available specifications and/or as
published in a Regulatory Circular. The Exchange notes that the Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM'') has a similar quote width protection in place
for market orders that does not specify the applicable limits within
the rule.\14\ The Exchange notes that it does not currently have an
NBBO width protection in place for Market Orders, and thus this
protection is an additive control to protect against erroneous
executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 21.1(d)(5).
    \12\ As defined in Rule 16.1(a)(29), the term ``NBB'' means the
national best bid, the term ``NBO'' means the national best offer,
and the term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by EDGX Options based on market information received by
EDGX Options from OPRA.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that identical or similar rules
regarding risk controls offered by C2 Options are also provided in
the rules of Cboe Options and on other options exchanges. However,
the Exchange has focused on the Rules of C2 Options as well as the
Exchange's own rules applicable to complex orders for purposes of
this proposal.
    \14\ See NOM Chapter VI, Section 6(c), which describes the NOM
Market Order Spread Protection and states that ``System Orders that
are Market Orders will be rejected if the best of the NBBO and the
internal market BBO (the ``Reference BBO'') is wider than a preset
threshold at the time the order is received by the System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Limit
Order Fat Finger Check. As proposed, if a User submits a buy (sell)
limit order to the System with a price that is more than a buffer
amount established by the Exchange above (below) the NBO (NBB), or, in
the case of an order received prior to 9:30 a.m., above (below) the
midpoint of the NBBO at the close of the market on the previous trading
day, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit order.
The proposed Limit Order Fat Finger Check is based on and similar to
certain Limit Order Price Parameters set forth in C2 Options Rule
6.17(b). In particular, similar to C2 Options Rule 6.17(b)(1) and
(b)(2), the Exchange would reject or cancel limit orders that

are more than an acceptable difference from the applicable reference
price and would distinguish the applicable reference price depending on
whether an order was received prior to market open or during the
trading day. However, in contrast to C2 Options Rule 6.17(b), which
states that the acceptable tick distance shall be no less than two
minimum increment ticks for simple orders, the Exchange does not
propose to set forth specific boundaries for the acceptable difference
within the proposed rule. As is true for the Market Order NBBO Width
Protection described above, the Exchange believes that it needs
flexibility to modify the acceptable price range based on experience
with the risk control and Users would always have access to the
applicable settings in the Exchange's publicly available specifications
and/or as published in a Regulatory Circular. The Exchange notes that
the BOX Options Exchange (``BOX'') has a similar price protection in
place for limit orders that does specify potential percentages in the
Rule but also permits BOX to modify such percentages via Information
Circular without establishing outer boundaries.\15\ The Exchange notes
that it currently applies mandatory fat finger protection to complex
orders received by the Exchange pursuant to Interpretation and Policy
.06 to Rule 21.20. The Exchange also notes that it currently offers
price protections analogous to the proposed Limit Order Fat Finger
Check for orders other than complex orders (i.e., ``simple orders''),
however, as noted above such price protections are optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BOX Rule 7290, which describes the Price Protection for
Limit Orders and Quotes and states that ``[t]he price parameter is
set by either the Exchange or the Participant on an underlying
security basis and is a percentage of the NBBO on the opposite side
of the incoming order or quote. Unless determined otherwise by the
Exchange and announced to Participants via Informational Circular,
the specified percentage shall be: 100% for the contra-side NBB or
NBO priced at or below $0.25; and 50% for the contraside NBB or NBO
priced above $0.25.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is the Buy
Order Put Check. As proposed, if a User enters a buy limit order for a
put with a price that is higher than or equal to the strike price of
the option, the System will reject or cancel back to the User the limit
order. Similarly, if a User enters a buy Market Order for a put that
would execute at (or the remaining portion would execute at) a price
higher than or equal to the strike price of the option, the System will
reject or cancel back to the User the Market Order (or remaining
portion). The Exchange does not propose to apply this check to adjusted
options. The proposed Buy Order Put Check is based on and substantively
identical to the Put Strike Price Value Check set forth in C2 Options
Rule 6.17(d)(1)(A). The Exchange notes that it does not currently have
an analogous risk control in place, and thus, this protection is an
additive control to protect against erroneous executions.
    The fourth and final risk control the Exchange proposes to adopt is
the Drill-Through Price Protection. As proposed, the Drill-Through
Price Protection feature is a price protection mechanism applicable to
all orders under which a buy (sell) order will not be executed at a
price that is higher (lower) than the NBO (NBB) at the time of order
entry plus (minus) a buffer amount established by the Exchange (the
``Drill-Through Price''). If a buy (sell) order would execute or post
to the EDGX Options Book at a price higher (lower) than the Drill-
Through Price, the System will instead post the order to the EDGX
Options Book at the Drill-Through Price, unless the terms of the order
instruct otherwise. Any order (or unexecuted portion thereof) will rest
in the EDGX Options Book (based on the time at which it enters the book
for priority purposes) for a time period in milliseconds that may not
exceed three seconds with a price equal to the Drill-Through Price. If
the order (or unexecuted portion thereof) does not execute during that
time period, the System will cancel it. While similar to and based on
C2 Options Rule 6.17(a)(2), the proposed Rule is more directly based on
Interpretation and Policy .04, to Exchange Rule 21.20, which describes
Drill-Through Price Protection applicable to complex orders on EDGX
Options. The proposed Drill-Through Price Protection is identical to
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 21.20 with the exceptions of
necessary differences between language related to simple orders and
complex orders and that in contrast to a User being able to modify the
protection to a more or less restrictive control, which is available
for the control on the Exchange for complex orders, the Exchange
proposes to apply standard Drill-Through Price Protection to all orders
and such protection cannot be modified.
    In connection with the changes described above, the Exchange
proposes to remove a portion of the definition of a [sic] Market Orders
to remove a risk protection currently in place that overlaps with
various risk controls described above. Market Orders are currently
defined in in Rule 21.1(d)(5) as ``orders to buy or sell at the best
price available at the time of execution.'' Rule 21.1(d)(5) further
states that ``[a]ny portion of a Market Order that would execute at a
price more than $0.50 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time the
order initially reaches EDGX Options, whichever is greater, will be
cancelled.'' The Exchange proposes to remove this price protection for
Market Orders because it is no longer necessary in light of the
proposed risk controls described above (other than the Limit Order Fat
Finger Check, which is inapplicable to Market Orders). In particular,
the Drill-Through Price Protection provides a control with respect to
the execution prices of Market Orders and would be duplicative of the
existing control.
Details in Transaction Reports
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 21.10, Anonymity, to
allow it to provide additional information on transaction reports.
Current Rule 21.10(a) states that ``[t]he intra-day transaction reports
produced by the System will indicate the details of the transactions,
and shall not reveal contra party identities.'' The Exchange notes that
this provision is consistent with Rule 11.13(d) of its cash equities
trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') but is not a common provision in
the rules of other options exchanges, including Cboe Options or C2
Options, which do not have such a provision. The Exchange currently
provides details regarding contra-parties on various end of day and end
of month reports for clearing purposes, and this information is
similarly readily available through the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') for clearing purposes.
    The Exchange proposes to remove the restriction on providing contra
party identities and to specifically state that aggregated and
individual transaction reports produced by the System will indicate the
details of a User's transactions, including the contra party's MPID,
capacity, and clearing firm account number.
    Current paragraph (c) of Rule 21.10 contains four exceptions to the
general rule of anonymity, providing that the ``Exchange shall reveal a
User's identity in the following circumstances: (1) For regulatory
purposes or to comply with an order of an arbitrator or court; (2) if
both Users to the transaction consent; (3) if a User is acting as
either a Market Maker or sending Orders on behalf of a Priority
Customer; or (4) unless otherwise instructed by a User, the Exchange
will reveal to a User, no later than the end of the day on the date an
anonymous trade was executed, when the User's Order has been
decremented by another Order submitted by that same User.'' The
Exchange proposes to

retain only the first exception, regarding regulatory purposes or to
comply with an order of an arbitrator or court, as the other exceptions
are no longer necessary to the extent the Exchange will provide
information on individual and aggregate transaction reports produced by
the System.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, consistent rules and functionality between the
Exchange and its affiliated exchanges will reduce complexity and help
avoid potential confusion by the Users of the Exchange that are also
participants on other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ The Exchange notes that its affiliate, BZX, also intends to
adopt changes that are substantively identical to the changes set
forth in this proposal. In addition, as Cboe Options and C2 Options
migrate to the same technology platform as the Exchange, Cboe
Options and C2 Options intend to modify rules and functionality to
be consistent with the Exchange and BZX, unless the retention of
differences is intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendment will reduce complexity
and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for all
Users of the Exchange. In particular, by adopting certain mandatory
risk controls, the Exchange's functionality will be more similar to
that of Cboe Options and C2 Options. In turn, when Cboe Options and C2
Options are migrated to the same technology as that of the Exchange,
Users of the Exchange and other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges will have
access to similar functionality on all Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. As
such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed price protection
mechanisms and risk controls will protect investors and the public
interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by mitigating potential
risks associated with market participants entering orders and quotes at
unintended prices, and risks associated with orders and quotes trading
at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous, which may likely
have resulted from human or operational error. While the Exchange has
previously offered many risk controls under Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 11.10 and other filings previously made by the
Exchange,\19\ the Exchange believes that Users will benefit from the
additional specificity provided under the proposed rules, particularly
because, in contrast to optional risk control functionality, the
proposed rules provide that each proposed risk control will be applied
to all orders received by EDGX Options. Although the Exchange's
proposed price protection mechanisms and risk controls are similar to
and based on existing rules of C2 Options or the Exchange, the Exchange
notes that it has not proposed to establish outer boundaries or limits
to the levels at which the mechanisms can be set. The Exchange believes
this is reasonable and is necessary to afford the Exchange the
flexibility to establish and modify the default parameters in order to
protect investors and the public interest and maintain a fair and
orderly market. The Exchange again notes that the applicable specified
levels will always be available in the Exchange's publicly available
specifications and/or as published in a Regulatory Circular. The
Exchange also notes that this approach is consistent with certain rules
of other options exchanges, which similarly offer risk controls that
can be modified without regard to a rule based limitation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra, note 7.
    \20\ See supra, notes 13 and 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 21.10 that will
permit the Exchange to provide additional detail in transaction reports
is consistent with the rules of other options exchanges that do not
contain explicit restrictions on providing such information. The
proposed changes are similarly consistent with a variety of current
Exchange and options industry practices, including the fact that
clearing information available through OCC already provides contra-
party information, as well as the ability of a User on the Exchange to
disclose their identity when quoting.\21\ Based on the foregoing, the
Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 21.10 are consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ in particular, in that they are
designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Rule 21.1(c)(1), defining ``Attributable
Orders'' as orders that are designated for display (price and size)
including the User's market participant identifier (``MPID'').
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposal will further promote consistency between the Exchange and its
affiliated exchanges, and is part of a larger technology integration
that will ultimately reduce complexity for Users of the Exchange that
are also participants on other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will have any direct impact
on competition. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal
creates any significant impact on competition.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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 \23\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\24\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \26\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
notes that the proposal will promote consistency between the Exchange
and its affiliated exchanges, and is part of a larger technology
integration that will ultimately reduce complexity for Users of the
Exchange that are also participants on other Cboe Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange further notes that allowing the Exchange to move forward
with the proposed changes without an operative delay will ensure that
the technology integration can continue with periodic but measured
changes rather than implementing several changes at once. Furthermore,
the Exchange states that the implementation of the risk controls will
help to avoid potentially erroneous executions. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2017-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2017-009. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2017-009 and should be
submitted on or before January 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00160 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54049-54051]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0712; Product Identifier 2019-NM-115-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-
200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
reports that elevator skin panels were found disbonded as a result of
water ingress. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed
inspections of skin panels on both elevators, and corrective actions if
necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0712.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0712; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0712;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-115-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact we receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0138, dated June 12, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0138'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted
by reports that elevator skin panels were found disbonded as a result
of water ingress. The FAA is issuing this proposed AD to address
disbonding of the elevator skin panels. This condition, if not detected
and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the elevators,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Relationship Between This Proposed AD and AD 2011-03-10

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2011-03-10, Amendment 39-16594 (76
FR 6543, February 7, 2011) (``AD 2011-03-10''). Rather, the FAA has
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require repetitive detailed
inspections of skin panels on both elevators, and corrective actions if
necessary, and would expand the Applicability to include the Airbus SAS
Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD
2011-03-10.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0138 describes procedures for a detailed inspection of
the affected parts and corrective actions.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency
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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0138 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD

process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2019-0138 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA
AD 2019-0138 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need
comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement
refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance
with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled
``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service
information specified in EASA AD 2019-0138 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0138 will be available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0712 after the FAA final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0138
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 103 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                  Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 14 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0  Up to $1,190.............  Up to $122,570.
 Up to $1,190.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost               Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 24 work-hours x $85 per                $0   Up to $2,040.
 hour = Up to $2,040.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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.

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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0712; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
115-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 25, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-03-10, Amendment 39-16594 (76 FR 6543,
February 7, 2011) (``AD 2011-03-10'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, and identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
AD.
    (1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (5) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that elevator skin panels were
found disbonded as a result of water ingress. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address disbonding of the elevator skin panels. This
condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the elevators, possibly resulting in reduced
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0138, dated June 12, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0138'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0138

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD, the exceptions given in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii)
apply.
    (i) Where EASA AD 2019-0138 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Where EASA AD 2019-0138 refers to December 15, 2009 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2009-0255), this AD requires using March
14, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-03-10).
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0138 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2011-03-10

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2011-03-10.

(j) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0138
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0138 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0138, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0138 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0712.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 27, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-21877 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 36030]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16205]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81224; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of Direxion Daily
Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares
Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200

July 27, 2017.
    On January 23, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``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 list and trade
shares of Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily
Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on February 7, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79916 (February 1,
2017), 82 FR 9608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On May 5, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\
On June 23, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80265, 82 FR 14778
(March 22, 2017).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80606, 82 FR 22042
(May 11, 2017). Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's
consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 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,'' and
``to protect investors and the public interest.'' See id. at 22043.
    \7\ Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety, is available on the Commission's Web
site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-05/nysearca201705-1822806-154288.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
February 7, 2017. August 6, 2017 is 180 days from that date, and
October 5, 2017 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\9\ designates October 5, 2017 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-05), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16205 Filed 8-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67220-67222]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26688]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73528; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule Regarding Non-Display Use
Fees

November 5, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 29, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes a change to the NYSE Proprietary Market Data
Fee Schedule (``Market Data Fee Schedule'') regarding non-display use
fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes a change to the Market Data Fee Schedule
regarding non-display use fees for NYSE OpenBook, NYSE Trades, NYSE BBO
and NYSE Order Imbalances, the market data products to which non-
display use fees apply. Specifically, with respect to the three
categories of, and fees applicable to, market data recipients for non-
display use, the Exchange proposes to describe the three categories in
the Market Data Fee Schedule.
    In September 2014, the Exchange revised the fees for non-display
use of NYSE OpenBook, NYSE Trades, and NYSE BBO and added fees for non-
display use of NYSE Order Imbalances.\4\ In the 2014 Filing, the
Exchange proposed certain changes to the categories of, and fees
applicable to, data recipients for non-display use. As set forth in the
2014 Filing: (i) Category 1 Fees apply when a data recipient's non-
display use of real-time market data

is on its own behalf as opposed to use on behalf of its clients; (ii)
Category 2 Fees apply when a data recipient's non-display use of real-
time market data is on behalf of its clients as opposed to use on its
own behalf; and (iii) Category 3 Fees apply when a data recipient's
non-display use of real-time market data is for the purpose of
internally matching buy and sell orders within an organization,
including matching customer orders on a data recipient's own behalf
and/or on behalf of its clients. The Market Data Fee Schedule currently
lists each category as Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3, without
further description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72923 (August 26,
2014), 79 FR 52079 (September 2, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-43) (``2014
Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to
add the descriptions of the three categories, as set forth above, as a
footnote to the Market Data Fee Schedule. Because there will now be
multiple footnotes to the Market Data Fee Schedule, the Exchange
proposes non-substantive edits to change the existing footnote
references from asterisks to numbers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \5\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ of
the Act, in particular, in that it is 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, and it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
among customers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that adding the description of the three
categories of data recipients for non-display use to the Market Data
Fee Schedule will remove impediments to and help perfect a free and
open market by providing greater transparency for the Exchange's
customers regarding the category descriptions that have been previously
filed with the Commission and are applicable to the existing Market
Data Fee Schedule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 because the Exchange is
merely adding to the Market Data Fee Schedule information that has been
previously filed with the Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule 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 if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission,\9\ the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \12\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes
that adding the description of the categories of market data recipients
for non-display use to the Market Data Fee Schedule is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it will
provide more transparency in the Exchange's Market Data Fee Schedule
regarding the existing definitions in that schedule. The Commission
agrees and has determined to waive the 30-day operative date so that
the proposal may take effect upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2014-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for Web site viewing and printing at the NYSE's principal office and on
its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-58 and should be submitted on
or before December 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26688 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P