[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23112-23114]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10512]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85862; File No. SR-Phlx-2019-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Equity 7, Section 3 To Adopt a Qualified
Market Maker Program and a Related Credit, and To Modify Two Existing
Fees

May 15, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 1, 2019, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 3 to adopt a Qualified Market Maker Program and a
related credit, and to modify two existing fees, as described further
below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Equity 7,
Section 3 to: (i) Adopt a Qualified Market Maker Program and a related
credit; and (ii) amend two existing fees.
    The first purpose of this change is to adopt a Qualified Market
Maker (``QMM'') Program and a related fee. A QMM is a member
organization that makes a significant contribution to market quality by
providing liquidity at the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in a
large number of securities for a significant portion of the day. A QMM
may be, but is not required to be, a registered market maker in any
security; thus, the QMM designation does not by itself impose a two-
sided quotation obligation or convey any of the benefits associated
with being a registered market maker. The designation will, however,
reflect the QMM's commitment to provide meaningful and consistent
support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at
the NBBO in a large number of securities. Thus, the program is designed
to attract liquidity both from traditional market makers and from other
firms that are willing to commit capital to support liquidity at the
NBBO. In return for providing the required contribution of market-
improving liquidity, a QMM will be provided with a supplemental credit
for executions of displayed orders in securities in Tape A priced at $1
or more per share that provide liquidity on the Exchange System.
Through the use of this incentive, the Exchange hopes to provide
improved trading conditions for all market participants through
narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at
the inside market. In addition, the program reflects an effort to use
financial incentives to encourage a wider variety of members to make
positive commitments to promote market quality. To be designated as a
QMM, a member organization must quote at the NBBO at least 10% of the
time during regular market hours in an average of at least 750
securities per day during a month. In return for its contributions, the
Exchange will provide a credit for executions of displayed orders in
securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity on the
Exchange System. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to provide a
credit of $0.0002 per share executed with respect to all displayed
orders in securities in Tape A priced at

$1 or more per share that provide liquidity. This credit will be in
addition to any credit that the Exchange provides under Equity 7,
Section 3.
    The second purpose of this change is to amend two fees that the
Exchange charges to member organizations that enter orders on the
Exchange that access more than certain specified volumes during a
month. For a member organization that accesses 0.065% or more of
Consolidated Volume \3\ during a month, the Exchange presently charges
a fee of $0.0029 per share executed in Nasdaq-Listed Securities, a fee
of $0.0028 per share executed in NYSE-Listed Securities, and a fee of
$0.0028 per share executed in Securities Listed on Exchanges other than
Nasdaq and NYSE. The Exchange also charges a $0.0030 per share executed
fee for all other member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As used in Equity 7, Section 3, the term ``Consolidated
Volume'' means the total consolidated volume reported to all
consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities during a month in equity securities, excluding
executed orders with a size of less than one round lot. For purposes
of calculating Consolidated Volume and the extent of a member's
trading activity the date of the annual reconstitution of the
Russell Investments Indexes are excluded from both total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase, from $0.0028 per share executed
to $0.0029 per share executed, its fees in NYSE-listed securities and
in securities listed on exchanges other than NYSE and Nasdaq for member
organizations that access 0.065% or more of Consolidated Volume during
a month. This proposed change will equalize the Exchange's liquidity
removal fees for securities in all three Tapes for member organizations
that access 0.065% or more of Consolidated Volume during a month. The
Exchange will continue to assess a $0.0030 per share executed fee to
all other member organizations that remove liquidity from the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not 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) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \7\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\8\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \8\ See NetCoalition, at 534--535.
    \9\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \10\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed supplemental $0.0002 per
share executed credit for displayed orders of QMMs in securities in
Tape A priced at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity is
reasonable because it is similar to other credits offered by the
Exchange for displayed orders that provide liquidity. In addition to
the proposed $0.0002 per share executed credit described above, the
Exchange also has other credit tiers for displayed orders ranging from
$0.0030 per share executed to $0.0023 per share executed. The proposed
credit will provide an opportunity to member organizations to receive
an additional credit in return for certain levels of participation on
the Exchange as measured by quoting at the NBBO. The proposed credit is
set at a level that is reflective of the beneficial contributions of
market participants that quote significantly at the NBBO for a wide
range of symbols. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to limit
applicability of the proposed credit to displayed orders in securities
in Tape A insofar as the Exchange seeks to incentivize member
organizations to add liquidity to the Exchange in such securities and
improve the market therefor.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.0002 per share executed
credit and qualification criteria of the QMM Program are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
will offer the same credit to all similarly situated member
organizations. Moreover, the proposed qualification criteria requires a
member to quote significantly at the NBBO therefore contributing to
market quality in a meaningful way on the Exchange. Any member
organization may quote at the NBBO at the level required by the
qualification criteria of the QMM Program. The Exchange notes that
Nasdaq and BX also have similar QMM programs in which Nasdaq and BX
members are required to quote at the NBBO more than a certain amount of
time during regular market hours.\11\ For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed QMM Program credit and qualification
criteria are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Nasdaq Equity 7, Section 114(d); BX Equity 7, Section
118(f). In contrast to the Exchange's proposal, Nasdaq and BX
require members to quote at the NBBO more than 25% of the time.
Nasdaq also requires a member to quote at the NBBO in an average of
at least 1,000 securities per day during the month, while BX
requires a member to quote at the NBBO in an average of at least 400
securities during the month. BX also charges a fee, rather than
assesses a credit, due to the fact that it operates on the ``taker-
maker'' model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase
its per share executed fees, for orders in securities (i) listed on
NYSE and (ii) on exchanges other than NYSE and Nasdaq, which it
assesses to member organizations that access at least 0.065% of
Consolidated Volume during a month. This proposal will equalize the
fees for executions of securities in all three Tapes that the Exchange
assesses to members that access liquidity of at least 0.065% of
Consolidated Volume in a month.

    The proposal is equitable and is not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange proposes to offer the same credits to all
similarly situated members and because the increased fees will be the
same for securities in all three Tapes.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the Exchange's fees
assessed and credits provided to member organizations do not impose a
burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are
completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from
other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The proposed QMM Program
credit provides member organizations with the opportunity to be
assessed higher credits for transactions if they improve the market by
providing significant quoting at the NBBO in a large number of
securities which the Exchange believes will improve market quality. The
proposed increases to fees that the Exchange assesses to member
organizations that access at least 0.0065% [sic] of Consolidated Volume
during a month are intended to harmonize these fees for executions of
orders in all three Tapes.
    In sum, the proposed changes are designed to make the Exchange a
more desirable venue on which to transact; however, if the changes
proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely
that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2019-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2019-19. 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-Phlx-2019-19 and should be submitted on
or before June 11, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10512 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39292]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 19d-1; SEC File No. 270-242; OMB Control No. 3235-0206.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information provided for in Rule 19d-1 (17 CFR 240.19d-1)--Notices by
Self-Regulatory Organizations of Final Disciplinary Actions, Denials
Bars, or Limitations Respecting Membership, Association, or Access to
Services, and Summary Suspensions.
    Rule 19d-1 (``Rule'') under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) prescribes the form and content of notices to be
filed with the Commission by self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'')
for which the Commission is the appropriate regulatory agency
concerning the following final SRO actions: (1) Disciplinary sanctions
(including summary suspensions); (2) denials of membership,
participation or association with a member; and (3) prohibitions or
limitations on access to SRO services.
    The Rule enables the Commission to obtain reports from the SROs
containing information regarding SRO determinations to discipline
members or associated persons of members, deny membership or
participation or association with a member, and similar adjudicated
findings. The Rule requires that such actions be promptly reported to
the Commission. The Rule also requires that the reports and notices
supply sufficient information regarding the background, factual basis
and issues involved in the proceeding to enable the Commission: (1) To
determine whether the matter should be called up for review on the
Commission's own motion; and (2) to ascertain generally whether the SRO
has adequately carried out its responsibilities under the Exchange Act.
    It is estimated that 10 respondents will utilize this application
procedure annually, with a total burden of 1,175 hours, based upon past
submissions. This figure is based on 10 respondents, spending
approximately 117.5 hours each per year. Each respondent submitted
approximately 235 responses. The staff estimates that the average
number of hours necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 19d-1
for each submission is 0.5 hours. The average cost per hour, per each
submission is approximately $101. Therefore, the total cost of
compliance for all the respondents is $118,675. (10 respondents x 235
responses per respondent x .5 hrs per response x $101 per hour).
    The filing of notices pursuant to the Rule is mandatory for the
SROs, but does not involve the collection of confidential information.
Rule 19d-1 does not have a record retention requirement.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16546 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74261-74263]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30046]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68381; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Proposing To Modify the
NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule Regarding the Manner in Which Funds From
Marketing Charges Are Controlled

December 7, 2012.
    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 November 30, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') 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 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
with respect to the manner in which funds from marketing charges are
controlled. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
with respect to the manner in which funds from marketing charges are
controlled.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the current
rates of the marketing charges. The marketing charge is currently
$0.65 per contract side on transactions in non Penny Pilot issues
where Market Makers trade against electronic customer orders or
$0.25 per contract side on transactions in Penny Pilot issues where
Market Makers trade against electronic customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently imposes a marketing charge against a Market
Maker that trades against an electronic customer order.\5\ Currently,
the pool of monies resulting from the collection of marketing charges
on electronic non-Directed Order flow is controlled by the Specialist
or the e-Specialist with superior volume performance over the previous
quarter for distribution by the Exchange at the direction of such
Specialist or e-Specialist to eligible payment accepting firms.\6\ The
pool of monies resulting from collection of marketing charges on
electronic Directed Order flow is controlled by the NYSE Amex Options
Market Maker to which the order was directed and distributed by the
Exchange at the direction of such NYSE Amex Options Market Maker to
payment accepting firms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See endnote 9 in the Fee Schedule. Broker Dealer and
Professional Customer electronic orders that trade contra to a
Market Maker do not result in the collection of marketing charges,
nor do executed Qualified Contingent Cross orders.
    \6\ See endnote 10 in the Fee Schedule. In making this
determination, the Exchange, on a class by class basis, evaluates
Specialist and e-Specialist performance based on the number of
electronic contracts executed at the Exchange per class. The
Specialist/e-Specialist with the best volume performance will
control the pool of marketing charges collected on electronic non-
Directed Order flow for these issues for the following quarter.
    \7\ See endnote 10 in the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the description above, an ATP Holder that submits
an Electronic Complex Order to the Exchange may designate an NYSE Amex
Options Market Maker to control the pool of monies resulting from the
collection of marketing charges related thereto, regardless of whether
such Market Maker is assigned to the particular class, and such funds
are distributed by the Exchange at the direction of such designated
NYSE Amex Options Market Maker to payment accepting firms.\8\ The
Exchange proposes to expand this method of control of marketing charge
funds, such that an ATP Holder that submits any electronic non-Directed
Order to the Exchange may designate an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker
to control the pool of monies resulting from the collection of
marketing charges related thereto, regardless of whether such Market
Maker is assigned to the particular class, and such funds will be
distributed by the Exchange at the direction of such designated NYSE
Amex Options Market Maker to payment accepting firms. As is currently
the case for Electronic Complex Orders, if an ATP Holder submits an
electronic non-Directed Order to the Exchange without designating an
NYSE Amex Options Market Maker, the pool of monies resulting from the
collection of such marketing charges will be distributed in the same
manner as is currently applicable for non-Directed Order flow, as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See endnote 10 in the Fee Schedule. If an ATP Holder submits
an Electronic Complex Order to the Exchange without designating an
NYSE Amex Options Market Maker, the pool of monies resulting from
the collection of such marketing charges is distributed in the same
manner as non-Directed Order flow, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently learned that other option exchanges allow
their market participants to have access to those exchanges' marketing
fee funds, regardless of whether the market participant has an
appointment in the class in which the order is received and

executed.\9\ As such, the Exchange has decided to permit the same on
its market for all electronic orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange understands that this is currently permitted on
the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), the International
Securities Exchange (``ISE'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX''). See
(i) footnote 6 in the CBOE Fee Schedule; (ii) the section in the
PHLX Pricing Schedule pertaining to Payment for Order Flow Fees; and
(iii) Section IV(D) of the ISE Fee Schedule, respectively, none of
which contain requirements that a market maker (or similar market
participant) have an appointment in the class in which an electronic
order is received and executed in order to have access to the
marketing charge funds generated from that order. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68131 (November 1, 2012), 77 FR
67032 (November 8, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that permitting a Market Maker to control
marketing charge funds generated from all electronic non-Directed
Orders, regardless of whether the order is for a class in which the
Market Maker is assigned, may allow Market Makers to encourage greater
order flow to be sent to the Exchange. A Market Maker could be able to
amass a greater pool of funds with which to use to incent order flow
providers to send order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that this increased order flow would benefit all market participants on
the Exchange. Indeed, a Market Maker would likely often not even be the
direct beneficiary of the increased order flow, since the Market Maker
would not trade with that order (as the Market Maker is not assigned to
that class). The market participants who can trade with that order
would be the direct beneficiaries. Allowing a Market Maker to control
marketing charge funds generated from an electronic non-Directed Order,
regardless of whether the order is for a class in which the Market
Maker is assigned, would provide a Market Maker with an incentive to
encourage the routing of order flow into classes in which the Market
Maker otherwise would not (i.e., classes in which the Market Maker is
not assigned or quoting). Further, this will also provide Market Makers
with more flexibility to change their assignments, as they will not
have to be concerned with whether or not they have made arrangements to
pay for order flow in a specific class prior to changing assignments.
    Therefore, the Exchange proposes that an ATP Holder that submits
any electronic non-Directed Order to the Exchange may designate an NYSE
Amex Options Market Maker to control the pool of monies resulting from
the collection of marketing charges related thereto, regardless of
whether such Market Maker is assigned to the particular class, and such
funds will be distributed by the Exchange at the direction of such
designated NYSE Amex Options Market Maker to payment accepting firms.
The Exchange proposes to amend endnote 10 in the Fee Schedule, as
necessary, to reflect this proposed change. The purpose of this
proposed change is to encourage the direction of increased order flow
to the Exchange, to allow Market Makers more flexibility to change
classes to which they are appointed, and to place the Exchange on even
competitive footing with other option exchanges.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding marketing charges and
that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ATP Holders, Market
Makers or any other market participants on the Exchange would have in
complying with the proposed change. The Exchange proposes to implement
these changes on December 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because it will allow Market Makers greater access to marketing charge
funds. In this regard, the Exchange believes that permitting a Market
Maker to control marketing charge funds generated from all electronic
non-Directed Orders, regardless of whether the order is for a class in
which the Market Maker is assigned, may allow Market Makers to
encourage greater order flow to be sent to the Exchange. A Market Maker
could be able to amass a greater pool of funds with which to use to
incent order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange. This
increased order flow would benefit all market participants on the
Exchange. Indeed, a Market Maker would likely often not even be the
direct beneficiary of the increased order flow, since the Market Maker
would not trade with that order (as the Market Maker is not assigned to
that class). The market participants who can trade with that order
would be the direct beneficiaries. Allowing a Market Maker to control
marketing charge funds generated from an electronic non-Directed Order,
regardless of whether the order is for a class in which the Market
Maker is assigned, would provide a Market Maker with an incentive to
encourage the routing of order flow into classes in which the Market
Maker otherwise would not (i.e., classes in which the Market Maker is
not assigned or quoting). Further, this will also provide Market Makers
with more flexibility to change their assignments, as they will not
have to be concerned with whether or not they have made arrangements to
pay for order flow in a specific class prior to changing assignments.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposal is reasonable because
other option exchanges allow their market participants to have access
to and control those exchanges' marketing fee funds, regardless of
whether the market participant has an appointment in the class in which
the order is received and executed.\13\ As such, the Exchange has
decided to permit the same on its market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to allow Market Makers
to encourage greater order flow to be sent to the Exchange. A Market
Maker could be able to amass a greater pool of funds with which to use
to incent order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange. This
increased order flow would benefit all market participants on the
Exchange. Further, allowing a Market Maker to control marketing charge
funds generated from an electronic non-Directed Order, regardless of
whether the order is for a class in which the Market Maker is assigned,
would provide a Market Maker with an incentive to encourage the routing
of order flow into classes in which the Market Maker otherwise

would not (i.e., classes in which the Market Maker is not assigned or
quoting).
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE MKT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSEMKT-2012-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-77. 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 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 offices of NYSE. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-77, and should be submitted on or before
January 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30046 Filed 12-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32576-32579]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12176]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

Proposed Airworthiness Design Standards; AQUILA Aviation by
Excellence GmbH, Model AT01

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of the design criteria for
Night visual flight rules (VFR) expansion and substantiation for the
Aquila GmbH AT01. These additional provisions are expansions of the
existing JAR-VLA (Joint Aviation Requirements--Very Light Aircraft) and
CS-VLA regulations to include Night VFR. The current regulations only
allow Day VFR, but the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is
expanding the VLA regulations for this type of airplane through EASA
special conditions. These FAA design criteria are being proposed to be
the same as the EASA Special Conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-111), Aircraft
Certification Service, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO
64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
Standards Office (ACE-112), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number
(816) 329-4090, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any person may obtain a copy of this
information by contacting the person named above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Background

    The original certification of the aircraft was done under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 21, Sec.  21.29, as a 14 CFR part 21, Sec.
21.17(b), special class aircraft, JAR-VLA, using the requirements of
JAR-VLA Amendment VLA/92/01 as developed by the Joint Aviation
Authority, and under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and
two additional design criteria issued on September 2, 2003 (68 FR
56809) The regulation applicable to the Amended Type Certificate (TC)
Night-VFR approval is Sec.  21.17(b). This section describes the
regulatory basis for the approval of JAR-VLA and CS-VLA aircraft as a
special class. Policy on this subject includes AC 23-11B and AC 21.17-
3.
    Airworthiness rules that are applicable to this Night-VFR approval
are Sec. Sec.  23.1381 through 23.1397 and 23.1401.
    FAA policy expressed in ACs 23-11B and 21.17-3 limits JAR-VLA and
CS-VLA aircraft approved under Sec.  21.17(b), to Day-VFR operations.
Part 23 certification was required for Night-VFR approval because the
VLA rules were not adequate to address Night-VFR operations. Since
publishing these advisory circulars, EASA has developed special
conditions to CS-VLA that are adequate to allow Night-VFR approvals. If
the applicant complies with the applicable airworthiness rules in CS-
VLA and the EASA special conditions, the previous policy disallowing
Night-VFR is no longer valid.
    Airplanes approved as special class under Sec.  21.17(b) may be
type certificated as both Day-VFR and Night-VFR if the certification
includes the required instrumentation and equipment specified in 14 CFR
91.205, and the certification basis includes the applicable rules of
CS-VLA at date of application and the appropriate EASA special
conditions.
    The FAA has concluded that it is acceptable to allow Night-VFR
certification for the Aquila Model AT01 under the special class amended
TC project AT00617CE-A, and has issued a project specific memorandum
allowing this for the AT01 Model airplane. Revisions to ACs 23-11B and
21.17-3 will be made to make this project specific policy a general
policy.
    To satisfy the additional required provisions of ``Proposed
Airworthiness Design Standards for Acceptance Under the Primary
Category Rule of Night Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Under the Special
Class (JAR-VLA) Regulations of 14 CFR 21.17(b); AQUILA Aviation by
Excellence GmbH, Model AT01'', the applicant, AQUILA, has submitted a
request to the FAA to use the EASA Special Conditions as shown on EASA
Certification Review Item (CRI) A-01 Issue 3, Appendix 1, dated October
3, 2010 ``EASA Special Condition Airworthiness standards for CS-VLA
aeroplane to be operated under night-VFR operations. Applicable to
AQUILA AT01'' as follows:

Appendix 1

Special Condition

Airworthiness Standards for CS-VLA Aeroplane To Be Operated Under
Night-VFR Operations

Applicable to AQUILA AT01

    Instead of VLA 1, VLA 181, VLA 773, VLA 807, VLA 903, VLA 905,
VLA 1121, VLA 1143, VLA 1147, VLA 1322, VLA 1325, VLA 1331, VLA
1351, VLA 1353, VLA 1431, VLA 1547, VLA 1559, VLA 1583 and due to
absence of specific requirements in CS-VLA (VLA 1107, VLA 1381, VLA
1383) the following proposed Special Conditions have to be complied
with:

SpC VLA 1 Applicability

    This airworthiness code is applicable to aeroplanes with a
single engine (spark- or compression-ignition) having not more than
two seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off Weight of not more
than 750 kg and a stalling speed in the landing configuration of not
more than 83 km/h (45 knots) (CAS), to be approved for day-VFR or
for day- and night-VFR. (See AMC VLA 1.)

SpC VLA 181 Dynamic Stability

    (a) Any short period oscillation not including combined lateral-
directional oscillations occurring between the stalling speed and
the maximum allowable speed appropriate to the configuration of the
aeroplane must be `heavily damped with the primary controls--
    (1) Free; and
    (2) In a fixed position
    (b) Any combined lateral-directional oscillations (`Dutch roll')
occurring between the stalling speed and the maximum allowable speed
appropriate to the configuration of the aeroplane must be damped to
1/10 amplitude in 7 cycles with the primary controls--
    (1) Free; and paragraph must be shown under the following
    (2) In a fixed position.
    (c) Any long period oscillation of the flight path (phugoid)
must not be so unstable as to cause an unacceptable increase in
pilot

workload or otherwise endanger the aeroplane. When in the conditions
of CS VLA 175, the longitudinal control force required to maintain
speeds differing from the trimmed speed by at least plus or minus
15% is suddenly released, the response of the aeroplane must not
exhibit any dangerous characteristics nor be excessive in relation
to the magnitude of the control force released (see AMC VLA 181
(c)).

SpC VLA 773 Pilot compartment view

    The pilot compartment must be free from glare and reflections
that could interfere with the pilot's vision in all operations for
which the certification is requested. The pilot compartment must be
designed so that--
    (a) The pilot's view is sufficiently extensive, clear, and
undistorted, for safe operation;
    (b) The pilot is protected from the elements so that moderate
rain conditions do not unduly impair his view of the flight path in
normal flight and while landing; and
    (c) Internal fogging of the windows covered under sub-paragraph
(a) of this paragraph can be easily cleared by the pilot unless
means are provided to prevent fogging. (See AMC VLA 773.)

SpC VLA 807 Emergency Exits

    (a) Where exits are provided to achieve compliance with CS-VLA
783 (a), the opening system must be designed for simple and easy
operation. It must function rapidly and be designed so that it can
be operated by each occupant strapped in his seat, and also from
outside the cockpit. Reasonable provisions must be provided to
prevent jamming by fuselage deformation.
    (b) Markings must be suitable for night VFR, if this kind of
operation is requested. (See AMC VLA 807 (b))

SpC VLA 903 Engine

    (a) The engine must meet the specifications of CS-22 Subpart H
for day-VFR operation, and must meet the Specification of CS-E for
night-VFR operation.
    (b) Restart capability. An altitude and airspeed envelope must
be established for the aeroplane for in-flight engine restarting and
the installed engine must have a restart capability within that
envelope.

SpC VLA 905 Propeller

    (a) The propeller must meet the specifications of CS-22 Subpart
J for day-VFR operation. For night-VFR operations the Propeller and
the Control System must meet the Specification of CS-P except for
fixed pitch propellers, for which CS-22 Subpart J is sufficient.
    (b) Engine power and propeller shaft rotational speed may not
exceed the limits for which the propeller is certificated or
approved.

SpC VLA 1107 Induction System Filters

    On reciprocating-engine installations, if an air filter is used
to protect the engine against foreign material particles in the
induction air supply--
    (a) Each air filter must be capable of withstanding the effects
of temperature extremes, rain, fuel, oil, and solvents to which it
is expected to be exposed in service and maintenance; and
    (b) Each air filter must have a design feature to prevent
material separated from the filter media from re-entering the
induction system and interfering with proper fuel metering
operation.

SpC VLA 1121 Exhaust System: General

    (a) Each exhaust system must ensure safe disposal of exhaust
gases without fire hazard or carbon monoxide contamination in the
personnel compartment.
    (b) Each exhaust system part with a surface hot enough to ignite
flammable fluids or vapours must be located or shielded so that
leakage from any system carrying flammable fluids or vapours will
not result in a fire caused by impingement of the fluids or vapours
on any part of the exhaust system including shields for the exhaust
system.
    (c) Each exhaust system component must be separated by fireproof
shields from adjacent flammable parts of the aeroplane that are
outside the engine compartment.
    (d) No exhaust gases may discharge dangerously near any fuel or
oil system drain.
    (e) No exhaust gases may be discharged where they will cause a
glare seriously affecting the pilot's vision at night.
    (f) Each exhaust system component must be ventilated to prevent
points of excessively high temperature.
    (g) Each exhaust heat exchanger must incorporate means to
prevent blockage of the exhaust port after any internal heat
exchanger failure.

SpC VLA 1143 Engine Controls

    (a) The power or supercharger control must give a positive and
immediate responsive means of controlling its engine or
supercharger.
    (b) If a power control incorporates a fuel shut-off feature, the
control must have a means to prevent the inadvertent movement of the
control into the shut-off position. The means must--
    (1) Have a positive lock or stop at the idle position; and
    (2) Require a separate and distinct operation to place the
control in the shut-off position.
    (c) For reciprocating single-engine aeroplanes, each power or
thrust control must be designed so that if the control separates at
the engine fuel metering device, the aeroplane is capable of
continuing safe flight and landing. (See AMC VLA 1143(c)).

SpC VLA 1147 Mixture Control

    (a) The Control must require a separate and distinct operation
to move the control toward lean or shut-off position.
    (b) Each manual engine mixture control must be designed so that,
if the control separates at the engine fuel metering device, the
aeroplane is capable of continuing safe flight and landing. (See AMC
VLA 1147(b)).

SpC VLA 1322 Warning, caution, and advisory lights

    If warning, caution, or advisory lights are installed in the
cockpit, they must be--
    (a) Red, for warning lights (lights indicating a hazard which
may require immediate corrective action);
    (b) Amber, for caution lights (lights indicating the possible
need for future corrective action);
    (c) Green, for safe operation lights; and
    (d) Any other colour, including white, for lights not described
in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of this paragraph, provided the colour
differs sufficiently from the colours prescribed in subparagraphs
(a) to (c) of this paragraph to avoid possible confusion.
    (e) Effective under all probable cockpit lighting conditions.

SpC VLA 1325 Static pressure system

    (a) Each instrument provided with static pressure case
connections must be so vented that the influence of aeroplane speed,
the opening and closing of windows, moisture or other foreign
matter, will not significantly affect the accuracy of the
instruments.
    (b) The design and installation of a static pressure system must
be such that--
    (1) Positive drainage of moisture is provided;
    (2) Chafing of the tubing, and excessive distortion or
restriction at bends in the tubing, is avoided; and
    (3) The materials used are durable, suitable for the purpose
intended, and protected against corrosion.
    (c) Each static pressure system must be calibrated in flight to
determine the system error. The system error, in indicated pressure
altitude, at sea-level, with a standard atmosphere, excluding
instrument calibration error, may not exceed 9 m ( 30 ft) per 185 km/h (100 knot) speed for the appropriate
configuration in the speed range between 1[middot]3 VSO
with flaps extended and 1[middot]8 VS1 with flaps
retracted. However, the error need not be less than 9 m
( 30 ft).

SpC VLA 1331 Instruments using a power supply

    For each aeroplane--
    (a) Each gyroscopic instrument must derive its energy from power
sources adequate to maintain its required accuracy at any speed
above the best rate-of-climb speed;
    (b) Each gyroscopic instrument must be installed so as to
prevent malfunction due to rain, oil and other detrimental elements;
and
    (c) There must be a means to indicate the adequacy of the power
being supplied to the instruments.
    (d) For night VFR operation there must be at least two
independent sources of power and a manual or an automatic means to
select each power source for each instrument that uses a power
source.

SpC VLA 1351 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT: General

    (a) Electrical system capacity. Each electrical system must be
adequate for the intended use. In addition--
    (1) Electric power sources, their transmission cables, and their
associated control and protective devices, must be able to furnish
the required power at the proper voltage to each load circuit
essential for safe operation; and
    (2) Compliance with sub-paragraph (a)(l) of this paragraph must
be shown by an electrical load analysis, or by electrical
measurements, that account for the electrical loads applied to the
electrical system in

probable combinations and for probable durations.
    (b) Functions. For each electrical system, the following apply:
    (1) Each system, when installed, must be--
    (i) Free from hazards in itself, in its method of operation, and
in its effects on other parts of the aeroplane;
    (ii) Protected from fuel, oil, water, other detrimental
substances, and mechanical damage; and
    (iii) So designed that the risk of electrical shock to occupants
and ground personnel is reduced to a minimum.
    (2) Electric power sources must function properly when connected
in combination or independently.
    (3) No failure or malfunction of any electric power source may
impair the ability of any remaining source to supply load circuits
essential for safe operation.
    (4) Each electric power source control must allow the
independent operation of each source, except that controls
associated with alternators that depend on a battery for initial
excitation or for stabilisation need not break the connection
between the alternator and its battery.
    (c) Generating system. There must be at least one generator if
the electrical system supplies power to load circuits essential for
safe operation. In addition--
    (1) Each generator must be able to deliver its continuous rated
power;
    (2) Generator voltage control equipment must be able to
dependably regulate the generator output within rated limits;
    (3) Each generator must have a reverse current cut out designed
to disconnect the generator from the battery and from the other
generators when enough reverse current exists to damage that
generator;
    (4) There must be a means to give immediate warning to the pilot
of a failure of any generator; and
    (5) Each generator must have an overvoltage control designed and
installed to prevent damage to the electrical system, or to
equipment supplied by the electrical system, that could result if
that generator were to develop an overvoltage condition.
    (d) Instruments. There must be a means to indicate to the pilot
that the electrical power supplies are adequate for safe operation.
For direct current systems, an ammeter in the battery feeder may be
used.
    (e) Fire resistance. Electrical equipment must be so designed
and installed that in the event of a fire in the engine compartment,
during which the surface of the firewall adjacent to the fire is
heated to 1100 [deg]C for 5 minutes or to a lesser temperature
substantiated by the applicant, the equipment essential to continued
safe operation and located behind the firewall will function
satisfactorily and will not create an additional fire hazard. This
may be shown by test or analysis.
    (f) External power. If provisions are made for connecting
external power to the aeroplane, and that external power can be
electrically connected to equipment other than that used for engine
starting, means must be provided to ensure that no external power
supply having a reverse polarity, or a reverse phase sequence, can
supply power to the aeroplane's electrical system. The location must
allow such provisions to be capable of being operated without hazard
to the aeroplane or persons.

SpC VLA 1353 Storage battery design and installation

    (a) Each storage battery must be designed and installed as
prescribed in this paragraph.
    (b) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained
during any probable charging and discharging condition. No
uncontrolled increase in cell temperature may result when the
battery is recharged (after previous complete discharge)--
    (1) At maximum regulated voltage or power;
    (2) During a flight of maximum duration; and
    (3) Under the most adverse cooling condition likely to occur in
service.
    (c) Compliance with sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph must be
shown by tests unless experience with similar batteries and
installations has shown that maintaining safe cell temperatures and
pressures presents no problem.
    (d) No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any battery in normal
operation, or as the result of any probable malfunction in the
charging system or battery installation, may accumulate in hazardous
quantities within the aeroplane.
    (e) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from the
battery may damage surrounding structures or adjacent essential
equipment.
    (f) Each nickel cadmium battery installation capable of being
used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have provisions
to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems
that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can
generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual
cells.
    (g) Nickel cadmium battery installations capable of being used
to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have--
    (1) A system to control the charging rate of the battery
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating;
    (2) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging
source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    (3) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means
for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event
of battery failure.
    (h) In the event of a complete loss of the primary electrical
power generating system, the battery must be capable of providing 30
minutes of electrical power to those loads that are essential to
continued safe flight and landing. The 30-minute time period
includes the time needed for the pilot(s) to recognize the loss of
generated power, and to take appropriate load shedding action.

SpC VLA 1381 Instrument lights

    The instrument lights must--
    (a) Make each instrument and control easily readable and
discernible;
    (b) Be installed so that their direct rays, and rays reflected
from the windshield or other surface, are shielded from the pilot's
eyes; and
    (c) Have enough distance or insulating material between current
carrying parts and the housing so that vibration in flight will not
cause shorting.
    A cabin dome light is not an instrument light.

SpC VLA 1383 Taxi and landing lights

    Each taxi and landing light must be designed and installed so
that--
    (a) No dangerous glare is visible to the pilots;
    (b) The pilot is not seriously affected by halation;
    (c) It provides enough light for night operations; and
    (d) It does not cause a fire hazard in any configuration.

SpC VLA 1431 Electronic equipment

    Electronic equipment and installations must be free from hazards
in themselves, in their method of operation, and in their effects on
other components. For operations for which electronic equipment is
required, compliance must be shown against CS-VLA 1309.

SpC VLA 1547 Magnetic direction indicator

    (a) A placard meeting the requirements of this section must be
installed on or near the magnetic direction indicator.
    (b) The placard must show the calibration of the instrument in
level flight with the engine operating.
    (c) The placard must state whether the calibration was made with
radio receivers on or off.
    (d) Each calibration reading must be in terms of magnetic
headings in not more than 30[deg] increments.
    (e) If a magnetic non-stabilized direction indicator can have a
deviation of more than 10[deg] caused by the operation of electrical
equipment, the placard must state which electrical loads, or
combination of loads, would cause a deviation of more than 10[deg]
when turned on.

SpC VLA 1559 Operating limitations placards

    The following placards must be plainly visible to the pilot:
    (a) A placard stating the following airspeeds (IAS):
    (1) Design manoeuvring speed, VA;
    (2) The maximum landing gear operating speed, VLO.
    (b) A placard stating `This aeroplane is classified as a very
light aeroplane approved for day VFR only or day and night VFR,
whichever is applicable, in non-icing conditions. All aerobatic
manoeuvres including intentional spinning are prohibited. See Flight
Manual for other limitations'.

SpC VLA 1583 Operating limitations

    (a) Airspeed limitations. The following information must be
furnished
    (1) Information necessary for the marking of the airspeed limits
on the indicator, as required in CS-VLA 1545 and the significance of
the colour coding used on the indicator.
    (2) The speeds VA, VLo, VLE where appropriate.
    (b) Weights. The following information must be furnished:

    (1) The maximum weight.
    (2) Any other weight limits, if necessary.
    (c) Centre of gravity. The established c.g. limits required by
CS-VLA 23 must be furnished.
    (d) Manoeuvres. Authorised manoeuvres established in accordance
with CS-VLA 3.
    (e) Flight load factors. Manoeuvring load factors: the following
must be furnished:
    (1) The factors corresponding to point A and point C of figure 1
of CS-VLA 333 (b), stated to be applicable at VA.
    (2) The factors corresponding to point D and point E of figure 1
of CS-VLA 333 (b) to be applicable at VNE.
    (3) The factor with wing flaps extended as specified in CS-VLA
345.
    (f) Kinds of operation. The kinds of operation (day VFR or day
and night VFR, whichever is applicable) in which the aeroplane may
be used, must be stated. The minimum equipment required for the
operation must be listed.
    (g) Powerplant limitations. The following information must be
furnished:
    (1) Limitation required by CS-VLA 1521.
    (2) Information necessary for marking the instruments required
by CS-VLA 1549 to 1553.
    (3) Fuel and oil designation.
    (4) For two-stroke engines, fuel/oil ratio.
    (h) Placards. Placards required by CS-VLA 1555 to 1561 must be
presented.

Information Contact

Comments Invited

    We invite interested parties to submit comments on the proposed
airworthiness standards to the address specified above. Commenters
must identify the AQUILA AT01 Model AT01 and submit comments to the
address specified above. The FAA will consider all communications
received on or before the closing date before issuing the final
acceptance. The proposed airworthiness design standards and comments
received may be inspected at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, Standards Office (ACE-110), 901
Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, between the hours of
7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 8, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-12176 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44873-44875]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3787]

Information To Support a Claim of Electromagnetic Compatibility
of Electrically-Powered Medical Device; Guidance for Industry and Food
and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of the guidance entitled ``Information to Support a
Claim of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of Electrically-Powered
Medical Device.'' This guidance describes the types of information that
should be provided to support a claim of EMC in a premarket submission
for an electrically powered medical device. Electromagnetic disturbance
is electronic product radiation that may interfere with the performance
of an electrically powered medical device in its intended environment
(i.e., cause an electromagnetic interference (EMI)). EMC assessment
helps to ensure that a device is able to function in its intended
environment without introducing excessive electromagnetic disturbances
that might interfere with other devices.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted,

such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security
number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing
process. Please note that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that identifies you in the body of
your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-3787 for ``Information to Support a Claim of Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) of Electrically-Powered Medical Device.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Information to Support a Claim of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
of Electrically-Powered Medical Device'' to the Office of the Center
Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Witters, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm. 1130, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance to provide
FDA's current thinking about the information that should be provided in
a premarket submission to support a claim of EMC for an electrically
powered medical device. The assessment of EMC helps to ensure that the
risks associated with performance degradation of electrically powered
medical devices due to EMI are adequately mitigated. This guidance is
intended to ensure that clear and consistent information regarding
medical device EMC are provided in premarket submissions to facilitate
the review of submissions with EMC claims associated with safety and
effectiveness.
    The guidance includes information consistent with specifications
described in FDA-recognized consensus national or international
standards for EMC such as in the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 60601-1-2: Edition 3: 2007-03, Medical Electrical
Equipment--Part 1-2: General Requirements for Basic Safety and
Essential Performance--Collateral Standard: Electromagnetic
Compatibility--Requirements and Tests; IEC 60601-1-2: Edition 4.0:
2014-01, Medical Electrical Equipment, Part 1-2: General Requirements
for Basic Safety and Essential Performance--Collateral Standard:
Electromagnetic Disturbances--Requirements and Tests; Association for
the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)/American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/IEC 60601-1-2: 2007/(R) 2012 Medical
Electrical Equipment--Part 1-2: General Requirements for Basic Safety
and Essential Performance--Collateral Standard: Electromagnetic
Compatibility--Requirements and Tests; and AAMI/ANSI/IEC 60601-1-2:
2014, Medical Electrical Equipment--Part 1-2: General Requirements for
Basic Safety and Essential Performance--Collateral Standard:
Electromagnetic Disturbances--Requirements and Tests Standards that
sponsors and manufacturers of electrically powered medical devices
often reference.
    The draft guidance of ``Information to Support a Claim of
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of Electrically-Powered Medical
Device'' was posted November 2, 2015, for public comment, and the
comment period ended on December 17, 2015. Three sets of comments were
received during the comment period.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on the information that should be provided to
support a claim of EMC of electrically-powered medical device. It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or
the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological

Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of
``Information to Support a Claim of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
of Electrically-Powered Medical Device'' may send an email request to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the
document. Please use the document number 1400057 to identify the
guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0231. The collections of information in 21 CFR
part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0120. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0332. The collections of information in the
guidance document ``Guidance for HDE Holders, Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs), Clinical Investigators, and FDA Staff--Humanitarian
Device Exemption (HDE) Regulation: Questions and Answers'' have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0661.

    Dated: July 5, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-16350 Filed 7-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 75629]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-381-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Devon 34694-44 Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt to be effective
12/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-382-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska Amendment to be effective 12/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.
    Docket Numbers: RP13-383-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska Amendment Filing to be effective 12/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-384-000.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Off-System Services Version 2.0.0 to be effective 1/
12/2013.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-116-001.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: Revised NAESB v2.0 Compliance Filing to be effective
12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.
    Docket Numbers: RP13-39-002.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River T.
    Description: Compliance Filing to Amend and Finalize 10/31/12 NAESB
Compliance Filing to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/12/12.
    Accession Number: 20121212-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1-001.
    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.
    Description: KO Transmission Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Compliance Filing in Docket No. RP13-1 to be effective 12/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 12/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20121213-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/12.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: December 13, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2012-30706 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

In an April 7, 2008 telephone call between John Schakenbach (EPA) and
Steve Mandel (Spectra Gases, a small specialty gas company (now a part
of Linde Electronics and Specialty Gases, a large company)), Steve
Mandel stated that if companies needed to meet ISO 17025, it would
increase EPA Protocol gas cylinder costs by $250-$300 per cylinder.