[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35094-35098]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12793]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77908; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to PIXL
Pricing

May 25, 2016.
    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 11, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``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 Section IV, Part A of the Pricing
Schedule entitled ``PIXL Pricing.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule change is to amend the PIXL \3\ pricing
located in the Pricing Schedule at Section IV, Part A. The Exchange
amends the PIXL Pricing to incentivize market participants to direct
more PIXL Orders to Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PIXL\SM\ is the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known
as Price Improvement XL or PIXL. A member may electronically submit
for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public
customer, broker-dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'')
against principal interest or against any other order (except as
provided in Rule 1080(n)(i)(F) it represents as agent (``Initiating
Order''), provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic
execution into the PIXL Auction pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange
Rule 1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange assesses a $0.07 per contract Initiating Order
Fee. If the member or member organization qualifies for the Tier 4 or 5
Customer Rebate \4\ in Section B, the member or member organization
will be assessed a discounted Initiating Order Fee of $0.05 per
contract for Simple PIXL Orders and $0.03 per contract for Complex \5\
PIXL Orders. The Exchange is proposing to make three changes to the
PIXL Pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program
consisting of five tiers that pay Customer rebates on three
Categories, A, B and C of transactions. A Phlx member qualifies for
a certain rebate tier based on the percentage of total national
customer volume in multiply-listed options that it transacts monthly
on Phlx. The Exchange calculates Customer volume in Multiply Listed
Options by totaling electronically-delivered and executed volume,
excluding volume associated with electronic Qualified Contingent
Cross (``QCC'') Orders, as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o). In
calculating electronically-delivered and executed Customer volume in
Multiply Listed Options, the numerator of the equation includes all
electronically-delivered and executed Customer volume in Multiply
Listed Options. The denominator of that equation includes national
customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options volume,
excluding SPY. See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    \5\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or ETF coupled with the purchase or sale of
options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing Change Number 1
    The Exchange proposes to assess a $0.05 per contract discounted
Initiating Order Fee to members and member organizations that qualify
for the Tier 4 or 5 Customer Rebate in Section B, regardless of whether
the order is a Simple or Complex PIXL Order. The Initiating Order Fee
for Simple PIXL Orders would therefore be assessed the same lower rate
when the member or member organization would qualify for this reduced
fee. The Exchange proposes to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee from $0.03 to $0.05 per contract provided the
member or member organization qualifies for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer
Rebate in Section B.
Pricing Change Number 2
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes a new incentive for members or
member organizations that deliver equal to or greater than 3.00% of
National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and exchange-traded
fund (``ETF'') option classes, excluding SPY options,\6\ in a given
month to lower their Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 per contract for
Complex PIXL Orders. This proposal will offer members submitting
Complex PIXL Orders the opportunity to pay no Initiating Order Fee
instead of a $0.05 per contract \7\ discounted Complex PIXL Initiating
Order Fee if the member qualifies for the incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund, which is
designed to track the performance of the S&P 500 Index.
    \7\ Today the Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee for members and
member organizations that qualify for the Tier 4 or 5 Customer
Rebate in Section B is $0.03 per contract. This proposal increases
that fee to $0.05 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing Change Number 3
    The Exchange also proposes to offer this new incentive to members
or member organizations under Common Ownership.\8\ Today, any member or
member organization under Common Ownership with another member or
member organization that qualifies for a Tier 4 or 5 Customer Rebate in
Section B will be assessed a discounted PIXL Initiating Order Fee of
$0.05 per contract for Simple PIXL Orders and $0.03 per contract for
Complex PIXL Orders. The Exchange proposes that any member or member
organization under Common Ownership with another member or member
organization that executes equal to or greater than 3.00% of National
Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and ETF options classes,
excluding SPY options, in a given month will be assessed a discounted
PIXL Initiating Order Fee of $0.05 for Simple PIXL Orders and $0.00 for
Complex PIXL Orders. The Exchange also proposes to increase the
discounted Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee for members or member
organizations under Common Ownership that qualify for Customer Rebate
Tier 4 or 5 in Section B. With this proposal, any member or member
organization under Common Ownership with another member or member
organization that qualifies for a Customer Rebate Tier 4 or 5 in
Section B will be assessed a discounted Complex PIXL Initiating Order
Fee of $0.05 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Common Ownership'' shall mean members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the increase to the discounted Complex PIXL Initiating
Order Fee for members and member organizations that qualify for a
Customer Rebate Tier 4 or 5 in Section B, the Exchange believes that
the increased discounted rate will continue to encourage members to
direct more Complex PIXL Orders to the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Currently, the Initiating Order Fee for Professional, Firm,
Broker-Dealer, Specialist and Market Maker orders that are contra to
a Customer PIXL Order will be reduced to $0.00 if the Customer PIXL
Order is greater than 399 contracts. The Exchange is not amending
this provision.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls, and 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) 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.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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
\13\ (``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.\14\ 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.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \14\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \15\ 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'. . . .'' \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing Change Number 1
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations that qualify
for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in Section B from $0.03 to $0.05
per contract is reasonable because the Exchange assesses this
discounted same [sic] rate for the Simple PIXL Initiating Order Fee.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that this fee is reasonable because
it continues to be lower than the $0.07 per contract Initiating Order
Fee for members and member organizations that do not qualify for Tier 4
or 5 of the Customer Rebate in Section B. Finally, the Exchange is
offering members and member organizations an opportunity to lower the
Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 per contract provided the
member or member organization executes equal to or greater than 3.00%
of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and ETF option
classes, excluding SPY options, in a given month.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations that qualify
for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in Section B from $0.03 to $0.05
per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange will apply the proposed fees in a uniform manner to all market
participants who qualify for the discounted rate. Further, all market
participants are eligible to earn Customer Rebates, transact Complex
PIXL Orders and participate in a PIXL Auction.
Pricing Change Number 2
    The Exchange's proposal to offer members and member organizations
an opportunity to pay no Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee provided
they transact equal to or greater than 3.00% of National Customer
Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and ETF option classes, excluding SPY
options, in a given month is reasonable because it will encourage
market participants to transact Customer volume as well as a greater
number of Complex PIXL Orders on the Exchange. Today, members and
member organizations may lower their Complex PIXL Order Initiating
Order Fees by qualifying for Tiers 4 \17\ or 5 \18\ of the Customer
Rebate in Section B. In order to qualify for Section B Customer Rebate
Tiers 4 or 5 a member or member organization is required to transact a
certain percentage of total National Customer Volume (above 1.60%) in
Multiply-Listed options in a month on Phlx to receive a lower Complex
PIXL Initiating Order Fee of $0.05 \19\ as compared to the Initiating
Order Fee of $0.07 per contract. With this proposal the Exchange offers
members and member organizations an opportunity to pay no Initiating
Order Fee for Complex PIXL Orders provided they deliver equal to order
[sic] greater than 3.00% of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed
equity and ETF options classes, excluding SPY options, in a given month
is transacted on Phlx [sic]. The Exchange seeks to encourage market
participants to increase the amount of Customer order flow that is
directed to Phlx by offering the opportunity to pay no Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee. In order to qualify for this new incentive, a
greater amount of Customer volume is necessary to be transacted than
the volume currently required to qualify for the Customer Rebate Tiers
4 and 5 in Section B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Tier 4 requires member and member organizations to transact
above 1.60%-2.50% of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed
Equity and ETF Options.
    \18\ Tier 5 requires member and member organizations to transact
above 2.50% of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Equity
and ETF Options.
    \19\ Today the Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee for members and
member organizations that qualify for the Tier 4 or 5 Customer
Rebate in Section B is $0.03 per contract. This proposal increases
that fee to $0.05 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that members and member organizations will
direct a greater amount of Customer liquidity to Phlx to qualify for a
Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee of $0.00 per contract. Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to offer member and member organizations an
opportunity to pay no Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee provided they
transact equal to or greater than 3.00% of National Customer Volume in
Multiply-Listed equity and ETF options classes, excluding SPY options,
in a given month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the

opportunity to pay no Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee is available to
all market participants. In addition, all market participants are
eligible to earn Customer Rebates, transact Complex PIXL Orders and
participate in a PIXL Auction.
Pricing Change Number 3
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations under Common
Ownership that qualify for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in
Section B from $0.03 to $0.05 per contract is reasonable for the same
reasons explained herein. It is also reasonable to offer member and
member organizations under Common Ownership an opportunity to pay no
Complex PIXL Order Initiating Order Fee provided the member or member
organization executes equal to or greater than 3.00% of National
Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and ETF options classes,
excluding SPY options, in a given month for the same reasons explained
herein. The Exchange believes that applying the same pricing to members
under Common Ownership as wholly-owned entities avoids disparate
treatment of members that have divided their various business
activities between separate corporate entities as compared to members
that operate those business activities within a single corporate
entity.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations under Common
Ownership that qualify for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in
Section B from $0.03 to $0.05 per contract is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the same reasons explained herein. It is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer member and
member organizations under Common Ownership an opportunity to pay no
Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee provided the member or member
organization executes equal to or greater than 3.00% of National
Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Equity and ETF options classes,
excluding SPY options, in a given month for the same reasons explained
herein. The Exchange believes that its proposed pricing is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it permits both wholly owned
and common control members and member organizations to be subject to
the same pricing for PIXL.

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,
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on inter-market competition is extremely limited.
Pricing Change Number 1
    The Exchange believes that increasing the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations that qualify
for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in Section B from $0.03 to $0.05
per contract does not create an undue burden on intra-market
competition because the Exchange will apply the proposed fees in a
uniform manner to all market participants who qualify for the
discounted rate. All market participants are eligible to earn Customer
Rebates, transact Complex PIXL Orders and participate in a PIXL
auction. Also, encouraging Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
Pricing Change Number 2
    The Exchange believes that it is does not create an undue burden on
intra-market competition to offer member and member organizations an
opportunity to lower the Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 per
contract provided the member or member organization executes equal to
or greater than 3.00% of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed
equity and ETF options classes, excluding SPY options, in a given month
because all market participants are eligible to earn Customer Rebates,
transact Complex PIXL Orders and participate in a PIXL auction. Also,
encouraging Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Pricing Change Number 3
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the discounted Complex PIXL
Initiating Order Fee for members and member organizations under Common
Ownership that qualify for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in
Section B from $0.03 to $0.05 per contract and the proposal to lower
the Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 per contract provided
the member or member organization executes equal to or greater than
3.00% of National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed equity and ETF
options classes, excluding SPY options, in a given month do not create
an undue burden on intra-market competition because the pricing
subjects both wholly owned and common control members and member
organizations to the same pricing for PIXL.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes to
increase the discounted Complex PIXL Initiating Order Fee for members
and member organizations, including those under Common Ownership, that
qualify for Tier 4 or 5 of the Customer Rebate in Section B from $0.03
to $0.05 per contract and offer a new incentive to reduce the Complex
PIXL Initiating Order Fee to $0.00 per contract, including those
members under Common Ownership, will impose any burden on intra-market
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act because all market participants are eligible to earn
Customer Rebates, transact Complex PIXL Orders and participate in a
PIXL auction. Also, encouraging Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.

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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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-2016-59 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-2016-59. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-59 and
should be submitted on or before June 22, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12793 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 9, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-11333

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Laker Airways (Bahamas) Limited						Date Filed:  January
14, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons,

property and mail between Nassau, Bahamas, and Pittsburgh, PA, on a
coterminal basis with currently authorized U.S.

Bahamas service.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 7, 2003, in this
docket

Applicant representative: Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>			DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  February 9, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 9, 2004 – February 9,
2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity

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

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        _X Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 96-6-45)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67408-67412]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23609]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78930; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-070]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Fees Schedule

September 26, 2016.
    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 22, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange seeks to amend its fees schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective
September 26, 2016. Specifically, the Exchange plans to list new
options on two FTSE Russell indexes on September 26, 2016. More
specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish fees for options that
overlie the FTSE Emerging Markets Index (``FTEM''), which are schedule
to be listed on September 26, 2016, and options that overlie the FTSE
Developed Europe Index (``AWDE''), which are scheduled to be listed in
the near future.
    By way of background, a specific set of proprietary products are
commonly included or excluded from a variety of programs, qualification
calculations and transaction fees. In lieu of listing out these
products in various sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange uses
the term ``Underlying Symbol List A'' to represent these products.
Currently, Underlying Symbol List A is defined in Footnote 34 and
represents the following proprietary products: OEX, XEO, RUT, RLG, RLV,
RUI, FXTM, UKXM, SPX (including SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VOLATILITY
INDEXES and binary options. The Exchange notes that the reason the
products in Underlying Symbol List A are often collectively included or
excluded from certain programs, qualification calculations and
transactions fees is because the Exchange has expended considerable
resources developing and maintaining its proprietary, exclusively-
listed products. Similar to the products currently represented by
``Underlying Symbol List A,'' AWDE and FTEM are not listed on any other
exchange. As such, the Exchange proposes to exclude or include AWDE and
FTEM in the same programs as the other products in Underlying Symbol
List A, as well as add AWDE and FTEM to the definition of Underlying
Symbol List A in Footnote 34. Specifically, like the other products in
Underlying Symbol List A, the Exchange proposes to except AWDE and FTEM
from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the Volume Incentive Program
(VIP), the Marketing Fee, the Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap
(``Fee Cap'') and exemption from fees for facilitation orders, and the
Order Router Subsidy (ORS) and Complex Order Router Subsidy (CORS)
Programs. Like all other products in Underlying Symbol List A (with the
exception of SROs), the Exchange proposes to apply to AWDE and FTEM the
CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. The Exchange does intend to
keep AWDE and FTEM volume in the calculation of qualifying volume for
the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees. The Exchange notes that
although AWDE and FTEM are being added to ``Underlying Symbol List A'',
it wishes to include AWDE and FTEM in the calculation of the qualifying
volume for the rebate of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees. The Exchange
wishes to continue to encourage Floor Brokers to execute open-outcry
trades in these classes and believes that including them in the
qualifying volume will provide such incentive.
    The Exchange next proposes to establish transaction fees for AWDE
and FTEM. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to assess the same fees
for AWDE and FTEM as apply to UKXM and FXTM options. Transaction fees
for AWDE and FTEM options will be as follows (all listed rates are per
contract):

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer................................................           $0.18
Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary..............            0.25
CBOE Market-Maker/DPM...................................            0.20
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit                0.65
 Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary
 Professional (non-AIM Electronic)......................
Joint Back-Office, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit                0.25
 Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary
 Professional (Manual and AIM)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to apply to AWDE and FTEM, like RUI,
RLV, and RLG, and RUT, the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract
($0.02 per contract for crossed orders). The Exchange also proposes to
apply to AWDE and FTEM the CFLEX Surcharge Fee of $0.10 per contract
for all AWDE and FTEM orders executed electronically on CFLEX, capped
at $250 per trade (i.e., first 2,500 contracts per trade). The CFLEX
Surcharge Fee assists the Exchange in recouping the cost of developing
and maintaining the CFLEX system. The Exchange notes that the CFLEX
Surcharge Fee (and $250 cap) also applies to other proprietary index
options, including products in Underlying Symbol List A.
    The Exchange currently assesses an Index License Surcharge for RUT
of $0.45 per contract for all non-customer orders. Because the fees
associated with the license for AWDE and FTEM are lower than the
license fees for RUT, the Exchange proposes to assess a Surcharge of
$0.10 per contract in order to recoup the costs associated with the
AWDE and FTEM license.
    In order to promote and encourage trading of AWDE and FTEM, the
Exchange proposes to waive all transaction fees (including the Floor
Brokerage Fee, Index License Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee) for
AWDE and FTEM transactions through December 31, 2016. In order to
promote and encourage trading of UKXM, FXTM, RUI, RLV and RLG, the
Exchange also proposes to extend the waiver of transaction fees
(including the Floor Brokerage Fee, Index License Surcharge and CFLEX
Surcharge Fee) for UKXM, FXTM, RUI, RLV and RLG. The Exchange proposes
to amend Footnote 40 to the Fees Schedule to make clear that
transaction fees for AWDE, FTEM, RUI, RLV, RLG, UKXM and FXTM will be
waived through December 31, 2016.
    The Exchange is also offering a compensation plan to the Designated

Primary Market-Maker(s) (``DPM(s)'') appointed in AWDE and FTEM to
offset the initial DPM costs. The Exchange proposes to add AWDE and
FTEM to Footnote 43 to the Fees Schedule, which currently provides that
DPM(s) appointed for an entire month in either FXTM or UKXM will
receive a payment of $7,500 per class per month through December 31,
2016. Because AWDE and FTEM are scheduled to be listed on September 26,
2016, the appointed DPM(s) will not have an appointment in AWDE and
FTEM for the entire month of September; thus, the DPM(s) will not
receive compensation for September 2016. The DPM(s) appointed for the
entire month of October, November, etc. will receive compensation of
$7,500 for each entire month the DPM is appointed in AWDE and FTEM
through December 31, 2016.
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.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge
different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed
because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation
that exists today for other index products, including RUT, RUI, RLV,
and RLG. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee amounts for
AWDE and FTEM orders are reasonable because the proposed fee amounts
are the same already assessed for similar products (e.g., RUT, RUI,
RLV, and RLG), as well as are within the range of amounts assessed for
the Exchange's other proprietary products.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index Options
Rate Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to other
market participants because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on
the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The fees offered to customers are
intended to attract more customer trading volume to the Exchange.
Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing
preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees
Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees structures of
many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to
Customers will be applied equally to all Customers (meaning that all
Customers will be assessed the same amount).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to, assess lower fees to Market-Makers as compared to
other market participants other than Customers because Market-Makers,
unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations,
including quoting obligations, that other market participants do not
have. Further, these lower fees offered to Market-Makers are intended
to incent Market-Makers to quote and trade more on the Exchange,
thereby providing more trading opportunities for all market
participants. Additionally, the proposed fee for Market-Makers will be
applied equally to all Market-Makers (meaning that all Market-Makers
will be assessed the same amount). This concept also applies to orders
from all other origins. It should also be noted that all fee amounts
described herein are intended to attract greater order flow to the
Exchange in AWDE and FTEM which should therefore serve to benefit all
Exchange market participants. Similarly, it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Proprietary orders than those of other market participants
(except Customers and Market-Makers) because Clearing Trading Permit
Holders also have a number of obligations (such as membership with the
Options Clearing Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and
financial obligations, that other market participants do not need to
take on. The Exchange also notes that the AWDE and FTEM fee amounts for
each separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to
all such market participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be
assessed the same amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed
the same amount, etc.).
    The Exchange believes the proposed AIM transaction fees for Brokers
Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and Customers are reasonable because the
amounts are still lower than assessed for AIM transactions in other
proprietary products.\7\ The Exchange believes it's equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees for AIM executions as
compared to electronic executions because AIM is a price-improvement
mechanism, which the Exchange wishes to encourage and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract for non-
crossed orders and $0.02 per contract for crossed orders to Floor
Brokers (and not other market participants) trading AWDE and FTEM
orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because only Floor
Brokers are statutorily capable of representing orders in the trading
crowd, for which they charge a commission. Moreover, this fee is
already assessed, in the same amounts, to the other products in
Underlying Symbol List A, including UKXM, FXTM, RUT, RUI, RLV, and RLG.
    The Exchange believes that assessing an Index License Surcharge Fee
of $0.10 per contract to AWDE and FTEM transactions is reasonable
because the Surcharge helps recoup some of the costs associated with
the license for AWDE and FTEM options. Additionally, the Exchange notes
that the Surcharge amount is the same as, and in some cases lower than,
the amount assessed as an Index License Surcharge to other index
products. The proposed Surcharge is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the amount will be assessed to all market
participants to whom the Surcharge applies. Not applying the AWDE and
FTEM Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is equitable and
not

unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to attract Customer
AWDE and FTEM orders, which increases liquidity and provides greater
trading opportunities to all market participants. Additionally, it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a lower License
Index Surcharge amount to AWDE and FTEM transactions as compared to RUT
transactions because the costs of the license associated with RUT is
greater.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes assessing a CFLEX Surcharge Fee of
$0.10 per contract for all AWDE and FTEM orders executed electronically
on CFLEX and capping it at $250 (i.e., first 2,500 contracts per trade)
is reasonable because it is the same amount currently charged to other
proprietary index products for the same transactions.\8\ The proposed
Surcharge is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
amount will be assessed to all market participants to whom the CFLEX
Surcharge applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Index Options Rate Table--All Index
Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CFLEX Surcharge Fee and
Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol
List A, CFLEX Surcharge Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excepting AWDE and FTEM from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale,
VIP, the Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, and the exemption from fees for
facilitation orders and the ORS and CORS Programs is reasonable because
other Underlying Symbol List A products (i.e., other products that are
exclusively-listed) are excepted from those same items. This is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reason; it seems
equitable to except AWDE and FTEM from items on the Fees Schedule from
which other proprietary products are also excepted.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to waive all transaction fees, including the Floor
Brokerage fee, the License Index Surcharge and CFLEX Surcharge Fee
because it promotes and encourages trading of these new products and
applies to all Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'').
    Applying to AWDE and FTEM to the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding
Scale is reasonable because it also applies to other Underlying Symbol
List A products. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for
the same reason; it seems equitable to apply to AWDE and FTEM the same
items on the Fees Schedule that apply to Underlying Symbol List A
options classes (i.e., proprietary options classes that are not listed
on other exchanges).
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to continue to include AWDE and FTEM in the calculation
of the qualifying volume for the Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees
rebate because the Exchange wishes to support and encourage open-outcry
trading of AWDE and FTEM, which allows for price improvement and has a
number of positive impacts on the market system.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to compensate DPM(s) that are appointed for an
entire month in either AWDE and FTEM. DPM(s) incur costs when receiving
an appointment, and in the case of AWDE and FTEM, the Exchange believes
it is appropriate to provide compensation to the DPM(s) to offset those
costs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees
are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances,
these different market participants have different obligations and
different circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market-Makers
have quoting obligations that other market participants do not have.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to waive
all transaction fees through December 31, 2016 will impose any burden
on intramarket competition because it applies to all TPHs and
encourages trading in these new products.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because AWDE and
FTEM will be exclusively listed on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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 \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-070 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-2016-070. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-070, and should be submitted on or before
October 21, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23609 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30911-30912]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0519]

Safety Zone; City of Port Aransas Fourth of July Fireworks
Display

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for Port Aransas
4th of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2019, to provide for the
safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable
waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within
the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the safety zone for this
event in Port Aransas, TX. During the enforcement periods, entry into
this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 4, Line 3, will be
enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on July 4, 2019, unless the
event is postponed because of adverse weather, in which case this rule
will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on July 5, 2019 and
July 6, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-
5125, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 4, Line 3, for the City of Port Aransas Fourth
of July Fireworks Display from 8:30 p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on July 4,
2019, with a rain date set for July 5 and 6, 2019. This action is being
taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation
for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, Sec.
165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Port Aransas
Fourth of July Fireworks Display, which encompasses portions of Corpus
Christi Ship Channel, Port Aransas, TX. As reflected in Sec. Sec.
165.23 and 165.801(a), if you are the operator of a vessel in the
regulated area you must comply with directions from the Captain of the
Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or any

designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter the
zonemust request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with
the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. In addition
to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the COTP or a
designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast
Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNM), Marine
Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs), and/or through other means of
public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of each
enforcement.

    Dated: June 20, 2019.
E.J. Gaynor,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2019-13798 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68432]
[DOCID:fr10no05-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-66-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

November 3, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline) tendered for filing its annual interruptible storage
revenue credit surcharge adjustment in accordance with section 24 of
the general terms and conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 14 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 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 10, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6209 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 16, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16468

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  Aerolineas de Baleares, S.A. (AeBal)					Date Filed:
November 17, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 and statement
of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to the extent necessary to permit
AeBal to wet lease aircraft to Spanair, S.A., a foreign air carrier of
Spain, for use by Spanair on Spanair flights between Madrid, Spain, on
the one hand, and Barcelona, Malaga, and Palma de Mallorca, Spain, on
the other hand (limited to the carriage of US Airways’ and Spanair’s
U.S.-Spain traffic).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  November 17, 2003, in
this docket

Applicant representative:  John P. Schmitz & Carl J. Summers (202)
263-3000

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  December 16, 2004

Effective dates of the exemption and statement of authorization granted:
 December 16, 2004-December 16, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity with
Spain

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

X  Standard exemption conditions attached

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

Attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

												05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78797-78798]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2246-046]

Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Amend license to re-develop recreation
area.
    b. Project No.: 2246-046.
    c. Date Filed: September 6, 2016.
    d. Applicants: Yuba County Water Agency.
    e. Name of Projects: Yuba River Development Project.
    f. Location: New Bullards Bar Reservoir, Yuba County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.200.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Curt Aikens, Yuba County Water Agency,
1220 F St., Marysville, CA 95901-4226,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: David Rudisail,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2246-046) on
any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: Yuba County Water Agency proposes to re-
develop the Cottage Creek Picnic Area which was destroyed by fire in
August 2010. The new Cottage Creek Group Campground would remain within
the construction footprint of the previous development and would be
constructed in two phases. Only phase one is subject to approval at
this time. Phase one would be completed within 1.5 years of approval
and would be authorized under the existing license. Phase one would
include: (1) Five double campsites with each consisting of a paved
vehicle spur with two single vehicle spaces and two recreational
vehicle camping spaces and a living space with one group-sized fire
ring, two bear resistant food lockers, two picnic tables and two tent
pads; (2) a host campsite with a paved vehicle spur and a septic hook-
up with a holding tank; (3) a potable water system consisting of water
hydrants within the campground and an underground distribution system
that would connect to the existing recreation water system; (4) a two-
unit vault restroom building; (5) a paved circulation road with vehicle
barriers; (6) a multi-panel information sign; (7) a paved overflow
parking area for nine single vehicles; and (8) trash facilities,
including a dumpster and individual receptacles.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other
comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the
proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license proposed re-
development. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents
with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect
the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also
serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

    Dated: November 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27069 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P