[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48779-48780]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72820; File No. SR-OPRA-2013-03]

Options Price Reporting Authority; Notice of Filing of Proposed
Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information To Amend Sections 5.4 and 7.1 of the
OPRA Plan

August 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 21, 2013, the Options Price Reporting Authority, LLC
(``OPRA'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') an amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated
Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information (``OPRA Plan'').\3\
The proposed amendment would modify Sections 5.4 and 7.1 of the OPRA
Plan as they pertain to operations of OPRA outside of its regular hours
of operations. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons on the proposed OPRA Plan amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by
the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608
thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31,
1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at http://www.opradata.com. The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and
dissemination of last sale and quotation information on options that
are traded on the participant exchanges. The twelve participants to
the OPRA Plan are BATS Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange, LLC,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated, International Securities Exchange, LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca,
Inc., and the Topaz Exchange, LLC (d/b/a ISE Gemini).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description and Purpose of the Plan Amendment

    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to amend the OPRA Plan so
that it provides for the aggregation of costs for operations of OPRA
outside of its regular hours of operations (``after-hours operations'')
with costs for operations of OPRA during its regular hours of
operations (``regular-hours operations'') and states expressly that
OPRA may establish separate fees for access to OPRA data during periods
of after-hours operations.
    One of OPRA's member exchanges has indicated that it is planning to
initiate after-hours trading and to request OPRA to operate during the
after-hours period when its market is open for trading.\4\ No exchange
has previously made such a request, and as a result OPRA currently does
not operate outside of its regular hours of operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OPRA Plan provides that the OPRA System will operate
outside of its regular hours of operation at the request of any one
or more of its member exchanges. See Section 5.3 of the OPRA Plan
(available on the OPRA Web site, www.opradata.com, under the ``OPRA
Plan'' tab). OPRA is not proposing to amend Section 5.3 of the OPRA
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the OPRA Plan provides that the costs of OPRA's after-
hour operations are to be allocated separately from the costs of OPRA's
regular-hour operations and in a somewhat different manner. In essence,
the Plan currently provides that the costs of OPRA's regular-hour
operations below a specified ceiling \5\ and OPRA's revenues from
regular-hour operations are both to be allocated among the OPRA member
exchanges on the basis of the relative number of compared trades in
options contracts traded on each of the OPRA member exchanges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Clause 7.1(a)(iii)(2) of the Plan provides that costs above
a ``specified ceiling'' are to be allocated in accordance with
OPRA's Capacity Guidelines. (OPRA's Capacity Guidelines are
available on the OPRA Web site, also under the ``OPRA Plan'' tab.)
The ``ceiling'' is described in Guideline 7 of the Capacity
Guidelines. OPRA is not proposing any change in the allocation of
costs that is described in the Capacity Guidelines.
    \6\ Section 7.1 of the Plan provides for three ``accounting
centers'': The foreign currency option or ``FCO'' accounting center,
the index option accounting center and the ``basic'' accounting
center--the accounting center for all options other than foreign
currency and index options. Section 7.1 describes the allocation of
revenues and expenses associated with OPRA's regular-hour operations
first among these three accounting centers and then within each of
these accounting centers. OPRA does not currently incur costs
specifically attributable to either the FCO accounting center or the
index option accounting center, and does not allocate revenues to
either of these accounting centers. Both the allocation of costs
among the accounting centers and the allocation of costs within each
accounting center are therefore on the basis of the relative number
of compared trades in options contracts traded on each of the OPRA
member exchanges. See, e.g., Section 7.1(a)(iii)(B) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current provisions of the Plan state that, if the OPRA System
operates outside of OPRA's regular hours, any costs attributable to
such operation will be allocated to the exchange or exchanges that are
actually operating during the after-hours period. The Plan does not
make any special provision for the allocation of revenues resulting
from fees for access to OPRA data generated in the course of after-
hours operations, and the Plan therefore provides that

these revenues will be allocated among the OPRA member exchanges in the
same way that revenues derived from regular-hours operations are
allocated. The result is that the Plan currently provides for the
allocation of costs of after-hours trading only to the exchange or
exchanges that are actually operating during the after-hours period,
but for the allocation of revenues resulting from fees for access to
quotation and last sale information generated in the course of after-
hours operations to all of the OPRA member exchanges on the basis of
the relative number of compared trades in options contracts traded on
each of the OPRA member exchanges in trading during both regular hours
and outside of regular hours.
    OPRA is therefore proposing to revise the Plan to provide that the
costs of after-hours operations will be aggregated with the costs of
operating the OPRA System during regular hours of operation. The
consequence of the revision would be that the aggregated costs of
operating the System during all hours of operation would be allocated
among all of OPRA's member exchanges, regardless of whether any
particular exchange operates its market outside of regular hours. OPRA
believes that this amendment will better align the provisions of the
Plan relating to the allocation of costs of after-hours operations with
the provisions of the Plan relating to the allocation of revenues
derived from after-hours trading.
    OPRA's Fee Schedule does not currently provide for fees
specifically for access to OPRA data during periods of after-hours
operations. OPRA believes that, in order to fairly allocate the burden
of funding OPRA's after-hours operations to those persons who choose to
have access to OPRA information during periods of after-hours
operations, it will be appropriate to establish such fees rather than
increase its current fees, and OPRA is proposing to add a sentence in
Section 5.4(d) to state expressly that it may establish such fees.\7\
However, OPRA is not proposing in this filing to amend its Fee Schedule
to establish fees for access to data generated in after-hours trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OPRA is also proposing in this filing to make a non-
substantive change to Section 5.4(d) to reflect that the OPRA Fee
Schedule is no longer identified as ``Exhibit B'' to the OPRA Plan
but is publicly available on the OPRA Web site under the ``Fees''
tab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan is available at
OPRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, http://opradata.com, and
on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

II. Implementation of the OPRA Plan Amendment

    OPRA will implement the proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan after
this filing has been approved by the Commission in accordance with
paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-OPRA-2013-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OPRA-2013-03. 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 plan amendment that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed plan amendment between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OPRA.
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-OPRA-2013-03
and should be submitted on or before September 8, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19476 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19412-19413]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0267; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-4]

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Winfield, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace in Winfield,
FL, as I-10 Helistop Heliport has been abandoned, and controlled
airspace is no longer required. This action would enhance the safety
and management of controlled airspace within the national airspace
system.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2021-0267; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-4, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority, as it would remove Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at I-10 Helistop Heliport, Winfield, FL, due
to the closing of the heliport.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0267 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2021-0267; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-4.'' The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR 71 to remove Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at I-10
Helistop Heliport, Winfield, FL, as the heliport has closed. Therefore,
the airspace is no longer necessary. This action would enhance the
safety and management of controlled airspace within the national
airspace system.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory
Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Winfield, FL [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 29, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-06962 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 1239-1240]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-60]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57071; File No. SR-DTC-2007-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Stock Loan and Repurchase Processing

December 31, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 7, 2007, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\
thereunder so that the proposal was 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under the proposed rule change, DTC will provide participants using
DTC's Stock Loan REPO Adjustment Menu (``SLRM'') system with new
warning messages advising participants if any corrective action is
needed to complete their stock loan or repurchase transaction.

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

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

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

    Prior to this rule change, DTC's SLRM system did not validate the
reason code used to reclaim a stock loan or repurchase (``repo'')
transaction. DTC participants have stated that the majority of errors
associated with this process arose when the wrong reason code was used
by counterparties.
    To reduce the frequency of these errors and the associated burden
of correcting them, DTC is modifying its system by providing warning
messages that advise a participant that a transaction will be rejected
due to an incorrect reason code for reclaiming these items. As a
result, users will be prompted to correct the reason code. In addition,
if a participant that is to return the stock of a loan or repo
transaction does not have sufficient inventory in its DTC deliverer/
CUSIP/contra account to cover the return, it will receive a
notification advising that an insufficient position exists so that it
can take corrective action. Finally, if there is an open repo position
for the same major/contra/CUSIP in DTC's system, a new warning message
will be displayed stating that an open repo position for the contra/
CUSIP exists.
    A new help screen will be displayed in SLRM to guide users when
they submit a stock loan or repo transaction. The screen will describe
the impact that a given action will have on the originator's stock loan
or repo account and the related dividend payment. Also, the SLRM
summary screen will be modified to list outstanding adjustments for a
period of twenty business days instead of the current five business
days. This will give participants more time to react to open stock loan
or repo items so that they may be reconciled in a more timely fashion.
    Proposed system changes will necessitate revisions to existing DTC
Service Guides.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The affected section of DTC's Guide is attached as Exhibit 5
to DTC's rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to DTC as it allows for more efficient processing of certain
transactions and will not adversely affect the safeguarding of funds or
securities in DTC's custody and control or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    DTC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \6\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \7\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency
and does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations
of the clearing agency or persons using the service. At any time within
60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-DTC-2007-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2007-15. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street,
NW., Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site
at http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html. 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 submission
should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2007-15 and should be submitted on or
before January 28, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-25655 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12651-12655]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0146; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-060-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E helicopters that requires
reducing the tail rotor (T/R) blade life limit, modifying a T/R hub and
grip assembly, re-identifying two T/R assemblies, clarifying the never-
exceed speed (Vne) limitation and reducing the inspection interval.
Since we issued that AD, the manufacturer has redesigned a T/R grip
bushing (bushing) that reduces the loads, which caused the T/R
cracking, on the T/R blades. This action would require installing the
new bushing and re-identifying the T/R hub-and-grip and hub-and-blade
assemblies and require a recurring inspection of each bushing. The
proposed actions are intended to prevent fatigue failure of a T/R blade
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15,
21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone
39-0331-711133; fax 39-0331-711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review a copy of
the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    On June 12, 2002, a T/R blade on an Agusta Model 119 helicopter
failed and resulted in an autorotative landing. As a result of this
failure, based on the commonality of the T/R blades on the model 109E
helicopter, Agusta issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico (ABT) No. 109EP-30,
dated June 21, 2002, for the Model 109E helicopter. The aviation
authority for Italy, Ente Nazionale per L'Aviazione Civile (ENAC),
issued Emergency AD No. 2002-340, dated June 28, 2002, for the Model
109E helicopters. On July 9, 2002, we issued Emergency AD 2002-14-51 to
require a pilot-check before each flight, and initial and repetitive
inspections of the T/R blades for a crack.
    ``As a precautionary measure,'' Agusta issued Revision A, dated
July 25, 2002, to ABT 109EP-30. On July 29, 2002, ENAC issued AD No.
2002-384, adopting the requirements of Revision A of this Agusta ABT.
On October 17, 2002, we issued immediately adopted AD 2002-17-51 (67 FR
67510, November 6, 2002) to require a reduction in VNE, a
pilot-check of each T/R blade before each start of the helicopter
engines, and initial and recurring inspections of each T/R blade for a
crack.
    Following increased ground vibrations in a Model A 109E helicopter,
another crack was discovered in a T/R blade, which prompted Agusta to
issue Revision B, dated November 17, 2002, to ABT 109EP-30. Analysis
and tests had shown that the fatigue failure of the T/R blade was
caused by unanticipated loads on the T/R blade. Revision B to that ABT
specified maintaining the VNE reduction until a new bushing
was installed in the T/R grip assembly. Further, that ABT established,
for T/R blade P/N 109-8132-01-111 on grip assembly P/N 109-8131-02-127,
a retirement life of 200 hours TIS. ENAC adopted the provisions of
Revision B of the Agusta ABT in ENAC AD No. 2002-592, dated November
28, 2002.
    On February 14, 2003, we issued AD 2002-25-51, Amendment 39-13060
(68 FR 9504, February 28, 2003), to require:
    For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, part number (P/N)
109-8131-02-151 (the T/R hub and blade assembly consists of two T/R
blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111, and one T/R hub and grip assembly, P/N
109-8131-02-127):
     Before further flight, installing a placard and marking
the airspeed indicator to reduce the helicopter VNE by 28
knots-indicated air speed (KIAS) in addition to any additional
reduction in VNE caused by optional equipment.
     Before each start of the helicopter engines, allowing an
owner/operator (pilot) to check the T/R blade for a crack so long as
the pilot records that AD compliance in the maintenance records in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v).
     Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 5 hours TIS, and before further flight any time
there is an increase in vibration levels, inspecting each T/R blade for
a crack using a 5x or higher magnifying glass.
     Establishing a new life limit for T/R blade, P/N 109-8132-
01-111, of 200 hours TIS and requiring T/R blades with 190 hours or
more TIS to be replaced within 10 hours TIS.
     On or before May 31, 2003, modifying and re-identifying
the T/R hub and grip assembly and the T/R hub and blade assembly, which
removes the VNE restriction and restores the T/R blade life
limit to 1,000 hours TIS.
    For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-
157 (the T/R hub and blade assembly consists of two T/R blades, P/N
109-8132-01-111, and one T/R hub and grip assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-
159):
     Before each start of the helicopter engines, allowing an
owner/operator (pilot) to check the T/R blade for a crack so long as
the pilot records that AD compliance in the maintenance records in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v).
     Within 25 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS, and before further flight any time there is an
increase in vibration levels, inspecting each T/R blade for a crack
using a 5x or higher magnifying glass.
     On or before accumulating 150 hours TIS on the T/R hub
assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-159, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 150 hours TIS, inspecting the bushings, P/N 109-8131-30-109,
linings for wear, and replacing any unairworthy bushing.
    Also, the existing AD states that T/R blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111,
which have been operated as part of the T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N
109-8131-02-151, are considered unairworthy components of the T/R hub
and blade assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-157, regardless of TIS.
    Finally, AD 2002-25-51 requires replacing any unairworthy T/R blade
before further flight.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2002-25-51, Agusta has issued Revision C, dated
September 29, 2006, to ABT No. 109EP-30, and states that the service
experience of T/R hub and blade assemblies with the newly-designed
bushings that reduce T/R blade loading has shown improvement and has
determined that increasing the amount of time between inspections is
appropriate, based upon the service history and the results of the
maintenance performed.
    In response to Revision C of the ABT, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2006-0353, dated December 4,
2006, which supersedes ENAC AD 2002-597 to extend the inspection
interval ``from 150 to 200 FH.'' Subsequently, EASA AD No. 2007-0010,
dated January 31, 2007, was issued to supersede AD No. 2006-0353 to
restore the initial requirements of ABT 109EP-30, Revision C, which
were unintentionally omitted from AD No. 2006-0353.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed ABT No. 109EP-30, Revision C, dated September 29, 2006,
which describes procedures for checking/inspecting for cracks on both
the upper and lower surfaces of T/R blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111;
replacing each bushing, P/N 109-0132-55 and spacer P/N 109-0132-13,
with bushing, P/N 109-8131-30-109, and instituting a recurring
inspection of each bushing; and cancelling the VNE
limitations when the newly-designed bushing is installed on each T/R
grip assembly, P/N 109-8131-29-101, a ``new'' pair of T/R blades, P/N
109-8132-01-111, is installed, and the T/R hub-and-grip and hub-and-
blade assemblies are re-identified.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:
     Before each start of the helicopter engines, visually
checking both sides of each T/R blade for a crack. An owner/operator
(pilot) may perform this check and must enter compliance into the
aircraft records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves
only a visual check for a crack and can be performed equally well by a
pilot or a mechanic. This procedure is an exception to our standard
maintenance regulations.
     For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-
8131-02-151, before further flight, modifying each T/R hub and blade
assembly by installing a new bushing in each grip assembly and two
zero-TIS T/R blades; and re-identifying the hub and grip assembly and
the T/R hub and blade assembly with different P/Ns.
     For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-
8131-02-157, within 25 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS, and before further flight any time there is an
increase in vibration levels, using a 5x or higher power magnifying
glass, visually inspecting each T/R blade for a crack.
     On or before accumulating 200 hours TIS on the T/R hub and
grip assembly, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS,
inspecting the linings and measuring the internal diameter of the
bushings. If the internal diameter of the bushing exceeds 41.35
millimeters, replacing the bushing.
     If there is a crack, before further flight, replacing the
T/R blade.
     Revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual to reflect that a T/R blade, P/N 109-8132-01-111,
which has not been operated as part of T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N
109-8131-02-151, has a retirement life of 1,000 hours TIS.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 75 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we
estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD:
     Visually inspecting the T/R blades would require about 0.5
work hours for a cost per helicopter of $43 and a total cost to U.S.
operators of $3,225 per inspection cycle.
     Replacing a cracked T/R blade would require about 2 work
hours, and required parts would cost about $25,320, for a total cost
per helicopter of $25,490.
     Modifying the hub assembly with new T/R blades and
bushings would require about 16 work hours, and required parts would
cost about $58,690, for a total cost per helicopter of $60,050.
     Inspecting the T/R bushings would require about 7 work
hours, for a cost per helicopter of $595 and a total cost to U.S.
operators of $44,625 per inspection cycle.
     Revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual would require about .25 work hour, for a cost per
helicopter of $22 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $1,650.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 to read 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 removing Amendment 39-13060 (68 FR
9504, February 28, 2003), and adding the following new Airworthiness
Directive (AD):

AGUSTA S.p.A. (Agusta): Docket No. FAA-2013-0146; Directorate
Identifier 2012-SW-060-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta Model 109E helicopters with tail rotor
(T/R) hub and blade assembly, part number (P/N) 109-8131-02-151 and
P/N 109-8131-02-157, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack in a T/R
blade. This condition could result in failure of the T/R blade and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2002-25-51, Docket No. 2002-SW-55-AD,
Amendment 39-13060 (68 FR 9504, February 28, 2003).

(d) Reserved

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before each start of the helicopter engines, visually check
both sides of each T/R blade for a crack in the inspection area
depicted in Figure 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD. This action may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate, and must be entered into the aircraft records
showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9
(a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained
as required by 14 CFR 91.173, 121.380, or 135.439.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25FE13.002

BILLING CODE 4910-03-C
    (2) For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-
8131-02-151 (consisting of two T/R blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111, and
one T/R hub and grip assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-127), before further
flight, modify each T/R hub and blade assembly by installing a new
bushing, P/N 109-8131-30-109, in each grip assembly and two zero-
hour time-in-service (TIS) T/R blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111; re-
identifying the hub and grip assembly as P/N 109-8131-02-159; and
re-identifying the T/R hub and blade assembly as P/N 109-8131-02-157
in accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part V, paragraphs
2. through 13., of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 109EP-30, Revision
C, dated September 29, 2006 (BT). A T/R blade, P/N 109-8132-01-111,
which has been operated as part of T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N
109-8131-02-151, must be retired regardless of TIS and may not be
used as part of the T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-157.
Returning the removed T/R blades, grips, or bushings to Agusta is
not required.
    (3) For helicopters with T/R hub and blade assembly, P/N 109-
8131-02-157 (consisting of two T/R blades, P/N 109-8132-01-111, and
one T/R hub and grip assembly, P/N 109-8131-02-159), within 25 hours
TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, and
before further flight any time there is an increase in vibration
levels, using a 5x or higher power magnifying glass, visually
inspect each T/R blade for a crack in accordance with the Compliance
Instructions, Part III, paragraphs 1. through 5. of the BT.
Reporting to Agusta is not required.
    (4) On or before accumulating 200 hours TIS on the T/R hub and
grip assembly, P/N

109-8131-02-159, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 hours
TIS, inspect the linings and measure the internal diameter of the
bushings, P/N 109-8131-30-109, by referring to Figure 2 of the BT.
If the internal diameter of the bushing exceeds 41.35 millimeters,
replace the bushing.
    (5) If there is a crack in a T/R blade, before further flight,
replace the cracked T/R blade.
    (6) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
maintenance manual to reflect that a T/R blade, P/N 109-8132-01-111,
which has not been operated as part of T/R hub and blade assembly,
P/N 109-8131-02-151, has retirement life of 1,000 hours TIS.

(g) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits will not be issued.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas, 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency AD No. 2007-0010, dated January 31, 2007.

 (j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 11, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04220 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49144-49145]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84274; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Rename the ``Extended Trading Hours'' to ``Global Trading Hours'' in
Its Rules and Fees Schedule

September 24, 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 September 18, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to rename the ``Extended Trading Hours'' to
``Global Trading Hours'' in its rules and Fees Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to reflect in the Exchange's rulebook
and Fees Schedule, a non-substantive branding change with respect to
the Exchange's ``Extended Trading Hours'' session.\3\ Particularly,
references to ``Extended Trading Hours'' or ``ETH'' will be deleted and
revised to state the new session name of ``Global Trading Hours'' or
``GTH'', respectively, throughout the Exchange's rulebook and Fees
Schedule. No other substantive changes are being proposed in this
filing. The Exchange represents that these changes are concerned solely
with the administration of the Exchange and do not affect the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of any rules of the Exchange or the
rights, obligations, or privileges of Exchange members or their
associated persons is any way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ``Extended Trading Hours'' session refers to the hours
outside of Regular Trading Hours during which the Exchange may be
open for trading as set forth in Rule 6.1 and may be referred to as
a ``trading session'' in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act10,\5\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed change is a non-substantive change and
does not impact the governance, ownership or operations of the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that by ensuring that its rules and
Fees Schedule reflect the new branding name for the Extended Trading
Hours session, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor
or market participant confusion.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
does not address competitive issues, but rather is concerned solely
with updating the Exchange's rules and Fees Schedule to reflect the
abovementioned name change.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-063 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-063. 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. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-063 and should be submitted on or before
October 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21110 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58765-58766]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM12-1-001, RM13-9-001; Docket No. RM13-11-001; Docket No.
RM13-16-001]

Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Frequency Response
and Frequency Bias, Setting Reliability Standard, Generator
Verification Reliability Standards; Notice of Filing

September 24, 2014.
    Take notice that on August 29, 2014, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation filed proposed revisions to various Violation
Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels associated with certain
Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Generator Verification
Reliability Standards, and Frequency Response and Frequency Bias
Setting Reliability Standards pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Order Nos. 786,\1\ 796,\2\ and 794.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Order No. 786,
145 FERC ] 61,051 (2013).
    \2\ Generator Verification Reliability Standards, Order No. 796,
146 FERC ] 61,213 (2014).
    \3\ Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability
Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on

the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 14, 2014.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23245 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 206 (Friday, October 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67576-67579]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90223]

Order Granting Conditional Exemptive Relief, Pursuant to Section
36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and Rule
608(e) of Regulation NMS Under the Exchange Act, Relating to the
Reporting of Allocations Pursuant to the National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail

October 19, 2020.

I. Introduction

    By letter dated August 27, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), Investors
Exchange LLC, Long Term Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL,
LLC, NASDAQ BX, LLC, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX,
LLC, NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc.,
and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the ``Participants'') requested
that the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
grant them exemptive relief from the National Market System Plan
Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT NMS Plan''),\1\ pursuant
to its authority under Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act, from certain allocation reporting requirements of
Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT NMS Plan.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAT NMS Plan was approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \3\ See letter from the Participants to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 27, 2020 (the ``August 27, 2020
Exemption Request''). Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms are
used as defined in the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 36 of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority,
with certain limitations, to ``conditionally or unconditionally exempt
any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or
provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation
thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the
protection of investors.'' \4\ Under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, the
Commission may ``exempt from [Rule 608], either unconditionally or on
specified terms and conditions, any self-regulatory organization,
member thereof, or specified security, if the Commission determines
that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanism of,
a national market system.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth below, this Order grants the
Participants' request for an exemption from Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1)
and (2) of the CAT NMS Plan as set forth in the August 27, 2020
Exemption Request, subject to certain conditions.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan, each
Participant must, through its Compliance Rule, require its Industry
Members to record and report to the Central Repository, if the order is
executed, in whole or in part: (1) An Allocation Report; \6\ (2) the
SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or
prime broker, if applicable; and the (3) CAT-Order-ID of any contra-
side order(s). Accordingly, the Participants have implemented
Compliance Rules that, among other things, require their Industry
Members that are executing brokers to submit to the Central Repository,
among other things, Allocation Reports and the SRO-Assigned Market
Participant Identifier of the clearing broker or prime broker, if
applicable.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines an ``Allocation
Report'' as ``a report made to the Central Repository by an Industry
Member that identifies the Firm Designated ID for any account(s),
including subaccount(s), to which executed shares are allocated and
provides the security that has been allocated, the identifier of the
firm reporting the allocation, the price per share of shares
allocated, the side of shares allocated, the number of shares
allocated to each account, and the time of the allocation; provided
for the avoidance of doubt, any such Allocation Report shall not be
required to be linked to particular orders or executions.''
    \7\ See, e.g., Cboe Exchange, Inc. Rule 7.22(a)(2)(A); New York
Stock Exchange LLC Rule 6830(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Relief

    In the August 27, 2020 Exemption Request, the Participants request
that the Participants be permitted to implement an alternative approach
to reporting allocations to the Central Repository, the ``Allocation
Alternative.'' Under the Allocation Alternative, any Industry Member
that performs an allocation to a client

account would be required through their Compliance Rules to submit an
Allocation Report to the Central Repository when shares/contracts are
allocated to the client account regardless of whether the Industry
Member was involved in executing the underlying order(s). Under the
Allocation Alternative, an ``Allocation'' would be defined as: (1) The
placement of shares/contracts into the same account for which an order
was originally placed; or (2) the placement of shares/contracts into an
account based on allocation instructions (e.g., subaccount allocations,
delivery versus payment (``DVP'') allocations). Pursuant to this
definition and the proposed Allocation Alternative, an Industry Member
that performs an Allocation to an account that is not a client account,
such as proprietary accounts and events including step outs,\8\ or
correspondent flips,\9\ would not be required to submit an Allocation
Report to the Commission for that allocation, but could do so on a
voluntary basis. The Participants propose to allow Industry Members to
report Allocations to accounts other than client accounts, but if
Industry Members report such Allocations, such Allocations must be
marked as Allocations to accounts other than client accounts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``A step-out allows a broker-dealer to allocate all or part
of a client's position from a previously executed trade to the
client's account at another broker-dealer. In other words, a step-
out functions as a client's position transfer, rather than a trade;
there is no exchange of shares and funds and no change in beneficial
ownership.'' See FINRA, Trade Reporting Frequently Asked Questions,
at Section 301, available at: https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/market-transparency-reporting/trade-reporting-faq.
    \9\ Correspondent clearing flips are the movement of a position
from an executing broker's account to a different account for
clearance and settlement, allowing a broker-dealer to execute a
trade through another broker-dealer and settle the trade in its own
account. See, e.g., The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation,
Correspondent Clearing, available at: https://www.dtcc.com/clearing-services/equities-trade-capture/correspondent-clearing.
    \10\ The Participants state that a ``client account'' is any
account that is not owned or controlled by the Industry Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Executing Brokers and Allocation Reports

    To implement the Allocation Alternative, the Participants request
exemptive relief from Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan, to
the extent that the provision requires each Participant to, through its
Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members that are executing
brokers, who do not perform Allocations, to record and report to the
Central Repository, if the order is executed, in whole or in part, an
Allocation Report. Under the Allocation Alternative, when an Industry
Member other than an executing broker (e.g., a prime broker or clearing
broker) performs an Allocation, that Industry Member would be required
to submit the Allocation Report to the Central Repository. When an
executing broker performs an Allocation for an order that is executed,
in whole or in part, the burden of submitting an Allocation Report to
the Central Repository would remain with the executing broker under the
Allocation Alternative. In certain circumstances this would result in
multiple Allocation Reports--the executing broker (if self-clearing) or
its clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports
identifying the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were
allocated and then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation
Report identifying the specific customer accounts to which the shares/
contracts were finally allocated.
    The Participants state that granting exemptive relief from
submitting Allocation Reports for executing brokers who do not perform
an Allocation, and requiring the Industry Member other than the
executing broker that is performing the Allocation to submit such
Allocation Reports, is consistent with the basic approach taken by the
Commission in adopting Rule 613. Specifically, the Participants believe
that the Commission sought to require each broker-dealer and exchange
that touches an order to record the required data with respect to
actions it takes on the order.\11\ Without the proposed exemptive
relief, executing brokers that do not perform Allocations would be
required to submit Allocation Reports. In addition, the Participants
state because shares/contracts for every execution must be allocated to
an account by the clearing broker, there would be no loss of
information by shifting the reporting obligation from the executing
broker to the clearing broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18,
2012), 77 FR 45722, 45748 (Aug. 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Identity of Prime Broker

    To implement the Allocation Alternative, the Participants request
exemptive relief from Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(2) of the CAT NMS Plan, to
the extent that the provision requires each Participant to, through its
Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members to record and report to
the Central Repository, if an order is executed, in whole or in part,
the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of the prime broker, if
applicable. Currently, under the CAT NMS Plan, an Industry Member is
required to report the SRO-Assigned Market Participant Identifier of
the clearing broker or prime broker in connection with the execution of
an order, and such information would be part of the order's lifecycle,
rather than in an Allocation Report that is not linked to the order's
lifecycle.\12\ Under the Allocation Alternative, the identity of the
prime broker would be required to be reported by the clearing broker on
the Allocation Report, and, in addition, the prime broker itself would
be required to report the ultimate allocation, which the Participants
believe would provide more complete information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Participants are not requesting exemptive relief
relating to the reporting of the SRO-Assigned Market Participant
Identifier of clearing brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Participants state that associating a prime broker with a
specific execution, as is currently required by the CAT NMS Plan, does
not reflect how the allocation process works in practice as allocations
to a prime broker are done post-trade and are performed by the clearing
broker of the executing broker. The Participants also state that with
the implementation of the Allocation Alternative, it would be
duplicative for the executing broker to separately identify the prime
broker for allocation purposes.
    The Participants state that if a particular customer only has one
prime broker, the identity of the prime broker can be obtained from the
customer and account information through the DVP accounts for that
customer that contain the identity of the prime broker. The
Participants further state that Allocation Reports related to those
executions would reflect that shares/contracts were allocated to the
single prime broker. The Participants believe that there is no loss of
information through the implementation of the Allocation Alternative
compared to what is required in the CAT NMS Plan and that this approach
does not decrease the regulatory utility of the CAT for single prime
broker circumstances.
    In cases where a customer maintains relationships with multiple
prime brokers, the Participants assert that the executing broker will
not have information at the time of the trade as to which particular
prime broker may be allocated all or part of the execution.\13\ Under
the Allocation Alternative, the executing broker (if self-clearing) or
its

clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports identifying
the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were allocated and
then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation Report
identifying the specific customer accounts where the shares/contracts
were ultimately allocated. To determine the prime broker for a
customer, a regulatory user would query the customer and account
database using the customer's CCID to obtain all DVP accounts for the
CCID at broker-dealers. The Participants state that when a customer
maintains relationships with multiple prime brokers, the customer
typically has a separate DVP account with each prime broker, and the
identities of those prime brokers can be obtained from the customer and
account information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Based on discussions with members of the Advisory
Committee, the Participants understand that multiple prime broker
arrangements are common, particularly with respect to customers that
are large funds. August 27, 2020 Exemption Request, supra note 3, at
5, n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Additional Conditions to Exemptive Relief

    Currently, the definition of Allocation Report in the CAT NMS Plan
only refers to shares. To implement the Allocation Alternative, the
Participants propose to require that all required elements of
Allocation Reports apply to both shares and contracts, as applicable,
for all Eligible Securities. Specifically, Participants would require
the reporting of the following in each Allocation Report: (1) The FDID
for the account receiving the allocation, including subaccounts; (2)
the security that has been allocated; (3) the identifier of the firm
reporting the allocation; (3) the price per share/contracts of shares/
contracts allocated; (4) the side of shares/contracts allocated; (4)
the number of shares/contracts allocated; and (5) the time of the
allocation.
    Furthermore, to implement the Allocation Alternative, the
Participants propose to require the following information on all
Allocation Reports: (1) Allocation ID, which is the internal allocation
identifier assigned to the allocation event by the Industry Member; (2)
trade date; (3) settlement date: (4) IB/correspondent CRD Number (if
applicable); (5) FDID of new order(s) (if available in the booking
system); \14\ (6) allocation instruction time (optional); (7) if the
account meets the definition of institution under FINRA Rule 4512(c);
\15\ (8) type of allocation (allocation to a custody account,
allocation to a DVP account, step out, correspondent flip, allocation
to a firm owned or controlled account, or other non-reportable
transactions (e.g., option exercises, conversions); (9) for DVP
allocations, custody broker-dealer clearing number (prime broker) if
the custodian is a U.S. broker-dealer, DTCC number if the custodian is
a U.S. bank, or a foreign indicator, if the custodian is a foreign
entity; and (10) if an allocation was cancelled, a cancel flag, which
indicates that the allocation was cancelled, and a cancel timestamp,
which represents the time at which the allocation was cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Participants propose that for scenarios where the
Industry Member responsible for reporting the Allocation has the
FDID of the related new order(s) available, such FDID must be
reported. This would include scenarios in which: (1) The FDID
structure of the top account and subaccounts is known to the
Industry Member responsible for reporting the Allocation(s); and (2)
the FDID structure used by the IB/Correspondent when reporting new
orders is known to the clearing firm reporting the related
Allocations.
    \15\ FINRA Rule 4512(c) states the for purposes of the rule, the
term ``institutional account'' means the account of: (1) A bank,
savings and loan association, insurance company or registered
investment company; (2) an investment adviser registered either with
the SEC under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act or with a
state securities commission (or any agency or office performing like
functions); or (3) any other person (whether a natural person,
corporation, partnership, trust or otherwise) with total assets of
at least $50 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    The Commission believes that granting exemptive relief from
Sections 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT NMS Plan as set forth
below to allow for the Allocation Alternative, subject to the
conditions described herein, is appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors, and that pursuant to Rule
608(e), this exemption is consistent with the public interest, the
protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets
and the removal of impediments to, and the perfection of a national
market system.

A. Executing Brokers and Allocation Reports

    The Commission is granting the Participants an exemption from the
requirement that the Participants, through their Compliance Rule,
require executing brokers to submit Allocation Reports. The Commission
understands that executing brokers that are not self-clearing do not
perform allocations themselves, and such allocations are handled by
prime and/or clearing brokers, and these executing brokers therefore do
not possess the requisite information to provide Allocation Reports.
Correspondingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to
condition this exemption on the Participants adopting Compliance Rules
that require prime and/or clearing brokers to submit Allocation Reports
when such brokers perform allocations. The Commission believes granting
exemptive relief would improve efficiency and reduce the costs and
burdens of reporting allocations for Industry Members because the
reporting obligation would belong to the Industry Member with the
requisite information, and executing brokers that do not have the
information required to provide an Allocation Report would not be
required to develop the infrastructure and processes required to
obtain, store and report the information. This exemptive relief should
not reduce the regulatory utility of CAT because an Allocation Report
would still be submitted covering each executed trade allocated to a
client account, which in certain circumstances could still result in
multiple Allocation Reports,\16\ just not necessarily by the executing
broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As noted above, under the Allocation Alternative, for
certain executions, the executing broker (if self-clearing) or its
clearing firm would report individual Allocation Reports identifying
the specific prime broker to which shares/contracts were allocated
and then each prime broker would itself report an Allocation Report
identifying the specific customer accounts to which the shares/
contracts were finally allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Identity of Prime Broker

    The Commission believes that exempting Participants from the
requirement that they, through their Compliance Rules, require
executing brokers to provide the SRO-Assigned Market Participant
Identifier of the prime broker is appropriate because, as stated by the
Participants, allocations are done on a post-trade basis and the
executing broker will not have the requisite information at the time of
the trade. Because an executing broker, in certain circumstances, does
not have this information at the time of the trade, this relief
relieves executing brokers of the burdens and costs of developing
infrastructure and processes to obtain this information in order to
meet the contemporaneous reporting requirements of the CAT NMS
Plan.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CAT NMS Plan, supra note 1, at Section 6.4(b)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, although executing brokers would no
longer be required to provide this information, regulators will still
be able to determine the prime broker(s) associated with orders through
querying the customer and account information database. If an executing
broker has only one prime broker, the identity of the prime broker can
be obtained from the customer and account information associated with
the executing broker. For customers with multiple prime brokers, the
identity of the prime brokers can be obtained from the customer and
account information

which will list the prime broker, if there is one, that is associated
with each account.

C. Additional Conditions for Exemptive Relief

    The Commission is granting the relief conditioned upon the adoption
of Compliance Rules that implement the reporting requirements of the
Allocation Alternative. The Commission believes that the proposed
definition of Allocation is reasonable. The Commission is also
exempting Participants from the requirement that they amend their
Compliance Rules to require Industry Members to report Allocations for
accounts other than client accounts. The Commission believes that
allocations to client accounts, and not allocations to proprietary
accounts or events such as step-outs and correspondent flips,\18\
provide regulators the necessary information to detect abuses in the
allocation process because it would provide regulators with detailed
information regarding the fulfillment of orders submitted by clients,
while reducing reporting burdens on broker-dealers. For example,
Allocation Reports would be required for allocations to registered
investment advisor and money manager accounts. The Commission further
believes that the proposed approach should facilitate regulators'
ability to distinguish Allocation Reports relating to allocations to
client accounts from other Allocation Reports because Allocations to
accounts other than client accounts would have to be identified as
such. This approach could reduce the time CAT Reporters expend to
comply with CAT reporting requirements and lower costs by allowing
broker-dealers to use existing business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, supra notes 8 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is conditioning this exemption on the Participants
amending their Compliance Rules to require additional elements in
Allocation Reports.\19\ These additional elements would enhance the
utility of CAT by providing more information related to allocations and
will ultimately assist market surveillance, market reconstructions, and
examinations. The Commission further believes that applying the
requirements for Allocation Reports to contracts in addition to shares
is appropriate because CAT reporting requirements apply to both options
and equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Specifically, the Participants would be required to modify
their Compliance Rules such that all required elements of Allocation
Reports apply to both shares and contracts, as applicable, for all
Eligible Securities. In addition, the Participants would be required
to modify their Compliance Rules so that Allocation Reports include
the following additional elements: (1) Allocation ID, which is the
internal allocation identifier assigned to the allocation event by
the Industry Member; (2) trade date; (3) settlement date: (4) IB/
correspondent CRD Number (if applicable); (5) FDID of new order(s)
(if available in the booking system); (6) allocation instruction
time (optional); (7) if account meets the definition of institution
under FINRA Rule 4512(c); (8) type of allocation (allocation to a
custody account, allocation to a DVP account, step out,
correspondent flip, allocation to a firm owned or controlled
account, or other non-reportable transactions (e.g., option
exercises, conversions); (9) for DVP allocations, custody broker-
dealer clearing number (prime broker) if the custodian is a U.S.
broker-dealer, DTCC number if the custodian is a U.S. bank, or a
foreign indicator, if the custodian is a foreign entity; and (10) if
an allocation was cancelled, a cancel flag, which indicates if the
allocation was cancelled, and a cancel timestamp, which represents
the time at which the allocation was cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed approach described in the August 27, 2020 Exemption
Request would require Participants to amend their Compliance Rules to
require Industry Members to provide Allocation Reports to the Central
Repository any time they perform Allocations to a client account,
whether or not the Industry Member was the executing broker for the
trades. The Participants also would be required to amend their
Compliance Rules to require their Industry Members reporting the
Allocation Reports to include the additional elements set forth above
on all Allocation Reports, in addition to those elements currently
required under the CAT NMS Plan.
    Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that, pursuant to
Section 36 of the Exchange Act, this exemption is appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors, and
that pursuant to Rule 608(e), this exemption is consistent with the
public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and the
perfection of a national market system.
    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, pursuant to Section 36(a)(1) of
the Exchange Act,\20\ and Rule 608(e) of the Exchange Act \21\ and with
respect to the proposed Allocation Alternative specifically described
above, that the Participants are granted an exemption from the
requirements set forth in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of the CAT
NMS Plan, subject to the conditions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \21\ 17 CFR 242.608(e).

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23467 Filed 10-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P