[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41331-41334]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0840; Special Conditions No. 25-769-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 777-300ER Series
Airplanes; Dynamic Test Requirements for Single-Occupant Oblique Seats
With Pretensioner Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 777-300ER series airplanes. These airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature is single-occupant, oblique
seats equipped with pretensioner restraint systems. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective August 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 18, 2018, Boeing applied for a change to Type Certificate
No. T00001SE for single-occupant oblique seats with pretensioner
restraint systems, instead of airbags, which are the typical restraints
used to protect the passengers from head injuries. These seats are to
be installed in Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes. The Boeing
Model 777-300ER series airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category
airplanes with passenger seating capacity of 550 and a maximum takeoff
weight of 775,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-300ER series
airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or the
applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 777-300ER series
airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes must comply with
the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and
the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    Single-occupant oblique seats with pretensioner restraint systems
to protect the passengers from head injuries.

Discussion

    Boeing will install, in Model 777-300ER series airplanes, oblique
(side-facing) seats that incorporate seatbelts with a pretensioner
system at each seat place, to comply with the occupant injury criteria
of Sec.  25.562(c)(5).
    The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate
injury criteria for oblique seat installations. However, the FAA
research program is not complete, and the FAA may update these criteria
as further research results are collected. To reflect current research
findings, the FAA issued policy statements PS-ANM-25-03-R1, ``Technical
Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,'' November 12, 2012, which
updates injury criteria for fully side-facing seats, and PS-AIR-25-27,
``Technical Criteria for Approving Oblique Seats,'' July 11, 2018, to
define injury criteria for oblique seats. These policies provide
background and technical information as well as applicable injury
criteria.
    The installation of obliquely oriented passenger seats are novel
such that the current certification basis does not adequately address
occupant-protection expectations with regard to the occupant's neck and
spine for seat configurations that are positioned at an angle greater
than 18 degrees from the airplane longitudinal centerline.
    The installation of passenger seats at angles between 18 and 45
degrees from the airplane longitudinal centerline are unusual due to
the seat occupant interface with the surrounding furniture, and which
introduce occupant alignment and loading concerns with or without the
installation of 3-point or airbag-restraint systems.
    FAA-sponsored research has found that an unrestrained flailing of
the upper torso, even when the pelvis and torso are nearly aligned, can
produce serious spinal and torso injuries. At lower impact severities,
even with significant misalignment between the torso and pelvis, these
injuries did not occur. Tests with the FAA Hybrid III anthropomorphic
test device (ATD) have identified a level of lumbar spinal tension
corresponding to the no-injury impact severity. This level of tension
is included as a limit in the special conditions. The spinal-tension
limit selected is conservative with respect to other aviation injury
criteria because it corresponds to a no-injury loading condition, but
the degree of conservatism is unknown because the precise spinal-
loading level at which injuries would begin to occur is unknown. The
small number of human-subject tests accomplished during this research
project limits the robustness of the selected tension limit.
    Other restraint systems have been used to comply with the occupant
injury criteria of Sec.  25.562(c)(5). For instance, shoulder harnesses
have been widely used on flight-attendant seats, flight-deck seats, in
business jets, and in general-aviation airplanes to reduce occupant
head injury in the event of an emergency landing. Special conditions,
pertinent regulations, and published guidance exist that relate to
other restraint systems. However, the use of pretensioners in the
restraint system on transport-airplane seats is a novel design.
    Pretensioner technology involves a step-change in loading
experienced by the occupant for impacts below and above that at which
the device deploys, because activation of the shoulder harness, at the
point at which the pretensioner engages, interrupts upper-torso
excursion. This could result in the head injury criteria (HIC) being
higher at an intermediate impact condition than that resulting from the
maximum impact condition corresponding to the test conditions specified
in Sec.  25.562. See condition 7 in these special conditions.
    The ideal triangular maximum-severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular (AC) 25.562-1B. For the evaluation and testing of less-severe
pulses for purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the pretensioner
setting, a similar triangular pulse should be used with acceleration,
rise time, and velocity change scaled accordingly. The magnitude of the
required pulse should not deviate below the ideal pulse by more than
0.5g until 1.33 t1 is reached, where t1
represents the time interval between 0 and t1 on the
referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B. This is an acceptable
method of compliance to the test requirements of the special
conditions.
    Additionally, the pretensioner might not provide protection, after
actuation, during secondary impacts. Therefore, the case where a small
impact is followed by a large impact should be addressed. If the
minimum deceleration severity at which the pretensioner is set to
deploy is unnecessarily low, the protection offered by the pretensioner
may be lost by the time a second larger impact occurs.
    The existing special conditions for Boeing Model 777-300ER series
airplane oblique seat installations do not address oblique seats with
3-point restraint systems equipped with

pretensioners. Therefore, the proposed configuration requires special
conditions.
    Conditions 1 through 6 address occupant protection in consideration
of the oblique-facing seats. Conditions 7 through 10 ensure that the
pretensioner system activates when intended, to provide the necessary
protection of occupants. This includes protection of a range of
occupants under various accident conditions. Conditions 11 through 16
address maintenance and reliability of the pretensioner system,
including any outside influences on the mechanism, to ensure it
functions as intended.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-20-01-
SC for the Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplane, which was published
in the Federal Register on March 2, 2020 (85 FR 12227). The FAA
received responses from one commenter.
    Boeing suggested one edit for clarity, to the paragraph immediately
preceding the list of conditions in the Special Conditions section, to
change text that reads, ``. . . passenger seats installed at an angle
18 degrees and 45 degrees . . .'' to read, ``. . . passenger seats
installed at an angle between 18 degrees and 45 degrees . . .'' The FAA
concurs with the suggested change because the change more correctly
conveys the installation angle range for oblique seats discussed in
these special conditions.
    Boeing recommended adding two sentences at the end of condition no.
7, regarding HIC, to be consistent with same-topic special conditions
previously issued. It is the FAA's understanding that the proposed
pretensioner restraint system is intended to replace the use of an
airbag system as mentioned in the Background section of this document.
Therefore, the information Boeing requested, pertaining to HIC
associated with airbag contact, would not apply to these special
conditions as originally proposed. However, in the event that an airbag
device is incorporated in conjunction with a pretensioner restraint
system, the FAA agrees to include the additional information consistent
with the information provided in recently published oblique-seat
special conditions. When present, the airbag device (e.g., inflatable
lap-belt airbag or structure-mounted airbag) must also meet the
existing special conditions applicable to either inflatable lap belts
or structure-mounted airbags.
    Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as
proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-300ER series
airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
installed at an angle between 18 degrees and 45 degrees from the
airplane longitudinal centerline must meet the following:
    1. Body-to-Wall and Body-to-Furnishing Contact:
    If a seat is installed aft of structure, such as an interior wall
or furnishings, and which does not provide a homogenous contact surface
for the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional
analysis and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury
criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For
example if, in addition to a pretensioner restraint system, an airbag
device is present, different yaw angles could result in different
airbag-device performance, then additional analysis or separate tests
may be necessary to evaluate performance.
    2. Neck Injury Criteria:
    a. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. In addition to a pretensioner restraint system, if
an airbag device also is present, the assessment of neck injury must be
conducted with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to
also consider that the neck injury potential would be higher for
impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    b. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

    Fzc = 1,530 lbs for tension
    Fzc = 1,385 lbs for compression
    Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
    Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    c. Peak Fz must be below 937 lbs in tension and 899 lbs
in compression.
    d. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis relative to the
torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward
facing.
    e. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
    3. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria:
    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1,200
lbs.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3
milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in
49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE recommended
practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test-Part 1-Electronic
Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.
    4. Pelvis Criteria:
    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
    5. Femur Criteria:
    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the Z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.
    6. ATD and Test Conditions:
    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609. The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at
the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural
supports (e.g. armrests or walls) installed.

    Note: Boeing must demonstrate that the installation of seats via
plinths or pallets meets all applicable requirements. Compliance with
the guidance contained in policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-00123,
``Guidance for Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for
Plinths and Pallets,'' dated February 2, 2000, is acceptable to the
FAA.
    7. Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
    The HIC value must not exceed 1000 at any condition at which the
pretensioner does or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse
that corresponds to the test conditions specified in Sec.  25.562.
Tests must be performed to demonstrate this, taking into account any
necessary tolerances for deployment.
    When an airbag device is present in addition to the pretensioner
restraint system, and the anthropormorphic test device (ATD) has no
apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact with an
airbag, a HIC unlimited scored in excess of 1000 is acceptable,
provided the HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208)
for that contact is less than 700. ATD head contact with the seat or
other structure, through the airbag, or contact subsequent to contact
with the airbag, requires a HIC value that does not exceed 1000.
    8. Protection During Secondary Impacts:
    The pretensioner activation setting must be demonstrated to
maximize the probability of the protection being available when needed,
considering secondary impacts.
    9. Protection of Occupants Other than 50th Percentile:
    Protection of occupants for a range of stature from a 2-year-old
child to a 95th percentile male must be shown. For shoulder harnesses
that include pretensioners, protection of occupants other than a 50th
percentile male may be shown by test or analysis. In addition, the
pretensioner must not introduce a hazard to passengers due to the
following seating configurations:
    a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.
    b. The seat occupant is a child in a child-restraint device.
    c. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
    10. Occupants Adopting the Brace Position:
    Occupants in the traditional brace position when the pretensioner
activates must not experience adverse effects from the pretensioner
activation.
    11. Inadvertent Pretensioner Actuation:
    a. The probability of inadvertent pretensioner actuation must be
shown to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per flight hour
of less than 10-\7\).
    b. The system must be shown not susceptible to inadvertent
pretensioner actuation as a result of wear and tear, or inertia loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers likely to be experienced
in service.
    c. The seated occupant must not be seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
    d. Inadvertent pretensioner activation must not cause a hazard to
the airplane, nor cause serious injury to anyone who may be positioned
close to the retractor or belt (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat or
standing adjacent to the seat).
    12. Availability of the Pretensioner Function Prior to Flight:
    The design must provide means for a crewmember to verify the
availability of the pretensioner function prior to each flight, or the
probability of failure of the pretensioner function must be
demonstrated to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per
flight hour of less than 10-\7\) between inspection
intervals.
    13. Incorrect Seat Belt Orientation:
    The system design must ensure that any incorrect orientation
(twisting) of the seat belt does not compromise the pretensioner
protection function.
    14. Contamination Protection:
    The pretensioner mechanisms and controls must be protected from
external contamination associated with that which could occur on or
around passenger seating.
    15. Prevention of Hazards:
    The pretensioner system must not induce a hazard to passengers in
case of fire, nor create a fire hazard, if activated.
    16. Functionality After Loss of Power:
    The system must function properly after loss of normal airplane
electrical power, and after a transverse separation in the fuselage at
the most critical location. A separation at the location of the system
does not have to be considered.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 22, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-13759 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73907-73909]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29260]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70969; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Customer Rebate Program

December 3, 2013.
    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 November 25, 2013, NASDAQ OMX 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 Customer Rebate Program in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    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 Exchange proposes to increase certain Customer rebates in the
``Customer Rebate Program,'' in Section B of the Pricing Schedule to
provide members an opportunity to receive higher Customer rebates.
    Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of
four tiers which pays Customer rebates on two Categories, A \3\ and
B,\4\ of transactions.\5\ A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate
tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in
multiply-listed options which it transacts monthly on Phlx. The
Exchange calculates Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options by
totaling electronically-delivered and executed volume, except volume
associated with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
Orders,\6\ as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o).\7\ Today, the Exchange
pays the following rebates: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule. Rebates are paid on Customer
PIXL Orders in Section II symbols that execute against non-
Initiating Order interest, except in the case of Customer PIXL
Orders that are greater than 999 contracts. All Customer PIXL Orders
that are greater than 999 contracts are paid a rebate regardless of
the contra party to the transaction.
    \4\ Category B rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II. Rebates are paid
on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute
against non-Initiating Order interest, except in the case of
Customer PIXL Complex Orders that are greater than 999 contracts.
All Customer PIXL Complex Orders that are greater than 999 contracts
are paid a rebate regardless of the contra-party to the transaction.
    \5\ See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    \6\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \7\ Members and member organizations under common ownership may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Common ownership means
members or member organizations under 75% common ownership or
control.
    \8\ SPY is included in the calculation of Customer volume in
Multiply Listed Options that are electronically-delivered and
executed for purposes of the Customer Rebate Program, however, the
rebates do not apply to electronic executions in SPY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percentage thresholds of
                                                   national customer volume in
             Customer rebate tiers               multiply-listed equity and ETF     Category  A     Category  B
                                                 options classes, excluding SPY
                                                       options  (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................................  0.00%-0.75%.....................           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2........................................  Above 0.75%-1.60%...............            0.12            0.17
Tier 3........................................  Above 1.60%-2.50%...............            0.14            0.17
Tier 4........................................  Above 2.50%.....................            0.15            0.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Customer Rebates in both
Categories A and B in Tiers 3 and 4 to increase the rebates by $0.02
per contract. The proposed Tier 3 Category A rebate would be increased
from $0.14 to $0.16 per contract. The proposed Tier 3 Category B rebate
would be increased from $0.17 to $0.19 per contract. The proposed Tier
4 Category A rebate would be increased from $0.15 to $0.17 per
contract. The proposed Tier 4 Category B rebate would be increased from
$0.17 to $0.19 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Tier 2, Categories A and B, to
pay a $0.02 per contract rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2
rebate to a Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common
Ownership,\9\ provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap \10\ as defined in Section II. The

Exchange believes that offering higher Tier 2, 3 and 4 rebates will
encourage market participants to direct a greater number of Customer
orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Common Ownership'' means members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control.
    \10\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion,
jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in this
Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In
addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-
side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and
(ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17
per contract fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Customer
rebates in Tiers 3 and 4 in Categories A and B by $0.02 per contract is
reasonable because it will attract a larger amount of Customer
liquidity to the Exchange. Today, Phlx offers members certain Customer
rebates to encourage Phlx member organizations to direct Customer order
flow to the Exchange, and the proposal will provide an additional
incentive for Customer order flow. 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.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the Customer
rebates in Tiers 3 and 4 in Categories A and B by $0.02 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will be applied to
all market participants in a uniform matter. All members are eligible
to receive the rebate provided they submit a qualifying number of
electronic Customer volume.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay a $0.02 per contract
rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate to a Specialist or
Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the
Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap is
reasonable because the Exchange intends to encourage Specialists and
Market Makers to transact Customer orders on the Exchange to receive
the enhanced rebate.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to pay a $0.02 per contract
rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate to a Specialist or
Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common Ownership, provided the
Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because unlike other market
participants, Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting
obligations \13\ to the market that do not apply to Customers,
Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers
serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace.
Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs unlike other
market participants including, but not limited to, PFOF and other costs
associated with market making activities,\14\ which results in a higher
average cost per execution as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and
Professionals. The proposed differentiation as between Specialists and
Market Makers as compared to other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the trading environment on the Exchange
by these market participants. The Exchange is continuing to offer the
Tier 2 rebate to all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \14\ Specialists and Market Makers pay for certain data feeds
including the SQF Port Fee. SQF Port Fees are listed in the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII. SQF is an interface that
allows Specialists and Market Makers to connect and send quotes into
Phlx XL and assists them in responding to auctions and providing
liquidity to the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow
to be directed to the Exchange. By incentivizing members to route
Customer orders, the Exchange desires to attract liquidity to the
Exchange, which in turn benefits all market participants. All market
participants are eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate. The
Exchange believes this pricing amendment does not impose a burden on
competition but rather that the proposed rule change will continue to
promote competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that offering Specialists and Market
Makers an enhanced rebate of $0.02 per contract in addition to the
applicable Tier 2 rebate creates an undue burden on competition because
Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations \15\
to the market that do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and
Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers serve an important role
on the Exchange with regard to order interaction and they provide
liquidity in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2013-114 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-Phlx-2013-114. 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-2013-114 and should be
submitted on or before December 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29260 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44890]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9051-9]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed July 13, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Through July 20, 2020, 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice:
    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200146, Draft, USA, MD, Fort Davison Army Airfield Area
Development Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/08/2020, Contact: Fort
Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division (DPW-ED)
703-806-0020.
EIS No. 20200147, Final Supplement, NASA, CA, Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for Soil Cleanup Activities at Santa
Susana Field Laboratory, Review Period Ends: 08/24/2020, Contact: Peter
Zorba, SSFL Project Director<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200148, Final, USACE, AK, Pebble Mine, Review Period Ends:
08/24/2020, Contact: Shane McCoy<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Amended Notice:
EIS No. 20200060, Draft, FHWA, VA, Route 220 Martinsville Southern
Connector, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2020, Contact: Mack A Frost 804-
775-3352. Revision to FR Notice Published 06/19/2020; Extending the
Comment Period from 7/24/2020 to 9/11/2020.

    Dated: July 20, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-16055 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P