[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65192-65194]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27411]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84814; File No. SR-BOX-2018-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Facility To Establish
Separate Fees and Credits on PIP and COPIP Transactions for SPY Options

December 13, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 30, 2018, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on December 1, 2018. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 Section I.B, PIP and COPIP
Transactions and Section III, Liquidity Fees and Credits of the BOX Fee
Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to establish separate
fees and credits on PIP and COPIP Transactions for options overlying
the Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts Trust (``SPY'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund
(``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to establish PIP and COPIP Transaction
\6\ fees for options overlying SPY. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
a $0.05 fee for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers for SPY PIP or COPIP Orders. Public Customers will not be
charged for SPY PIP or COPIP Orders. The Exchange notes that the
proposed SPY fees are identical to the current PIP and COPIP Order
fees. For SPY Improvement Orders, the Exchange proposes a $0.05 fee for
all account types. For SPY Primary Improvement Orders, the Exchange
proposes to establish a flat per contract execution fee of $0.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Transactions executed through Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'') and the Complex Order Price Improvement Period (``COPIP'')
auction mechanisms. All COPIP transactions will be charged per
contract per leg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that all SPY transactions executed through the
PIP and COPIP auction mechanisms will be included in the calculation of
Customer Volume in Multiply Listed Options Classes for purposes of the
Primary Improvement Order tiered execution fee and BOX Volume Rebate in
Section I.B of the BOX Fee Schedule. However, the tiered execution fee
and rebates defined in Section I.B will not apply to executions in SPY.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees discussed above are
reasonable as they are similar to another options exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule Section 3,
Part C. Phlx assesses a $0.05 per contract fee for all PIXL
Initiating Orders in SPY (PIXL is Phlx's price improvement mechanism
similar to BOX's PIP mechanism). Further, Phlx assesses a $0.38 per
contract fee to non-Customers when their PIXL Order is contra to an
Initiating Order; unless the PIXL Order is a Public Customer, in
which case the fee is $0.00 per contract. Next, the Exchange
believes the $0.02 per contract Primary Improvement Order fee for
SPY executions is reasonable when compared to Phlx's fees for
similar transactions. The Exchange also notes the proposed SPY PIP
and COPIP Order Fees are identical to the PIP and COPIP Order Fees
that currently apply to all options. The Exchange is simply carving
out a separate section for all SPY PIP and COPIP transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to establish liquidity fees and
credits for SPY executions in the PIP or COPIP auction mechanisms.
Currently, in Section III.A of the Fee Schedule, a Public Customer PIP
or COPIP Order receives a ``removal'' credit while the corresponding
Primary Improvement Order and any Improvement Order are charged an
``add'' fee. The Exchange proposes a $0.45 fee for all SPY PIP and
COPIP transactions that add liquidity and a $0.45 credit for all SPY
COPIP and PIP transactions that remove liquidity.

    Further, under the BOX Fee schedule, when Non-Public Customer PIP
or COPIP orders do not trade with its Primary Improvement Order, the
Primary Improvement Order receives a ``removal'' credit and any
corresponding Improvement Order responses are charged an ``add'' fee.
For these types of executions the Exchange proposes a $0.45 fee for all
SPY PIP and COPIP transactions that add liquidity and a $0.45 credit
for all SPY PIP and COPIP transactions that remove liquidity. The
Exchange notes that the proposed fees and credits are similar to fees
at another options exchange.\8\ Lastly, the Exchange notes that it is
updating the footnotes throughout the Fee Schedule to accommodate the
addition of new footnotes related to the changes discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Part A. The Exchange
notes that Phlx offers rebates ranging from $0.15 to $0.35 to
Specialists and Market Makers for adding liquidity in SPY. Further,
Phlx assesses a $0.48 fee for Market Makers, Broker Dealers and
Professionals and a $0.45 fee for Public Customers for removing
liquidity in SPY. As discussed herein, the Exchange proposes to
assess fees for adding liquidity in SPY and offer credits for
removing liquidity in SPY. The Exchange believes this is reasonable
as the proposed change mirrors the structure of the liquidity fees
and credits currently in place in the BOX Fee Schedule for PIP and
COPIP transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to adopt new pricing for PIP and COPIP SPY
executions is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options
exchanges as a means to incentivize order flow to be sent to an
exchange for execution in the most actively traded options classes.\10\
The Exchange notes that another options exchange has a similar pricing
structure for SPY in their respective price improvement mechanism.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange is proposing to decrease the fees for SPY
Improvement Orders, which are responses in the PIP and COPIP
mechanisms, to $0.05 for all types of Participants; as well as
assess a flat $0.02 fee for SPY Primary Improvement Orders. The
Exchange believes these decreased fees are reasonable and will
result in increased SPY order flow to BOX's auction mechanisms.
    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for SPY PIP and COPIP
Orders are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As
noted above, these fees are identical to the current PIP and COPIP
Order fees assessed on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed SPY Improvement Order fees
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the decreased fees
will encourage market participants to take advantage of the new pricing
structure and respond to more SPY PIP and COPIP Orders. The Exchange
believes it is reasonable to assess lower fees to transact SPY
Improvement Orders (compared to Penny and Non-Penny Improvement Orders)
because the Exchange seeks to incentivize market participants to
transact a greater number of SPY option transactions in the PIP or
COPIP mechanisms.
    The Exchange's proposal to assess a flat fee for SPY Primary
Improvement Orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing a flat $0.02
per contract fee which is the same as the highest volume tier for all
other Primary Improvement Orders.\12\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee will encourage Participants to submit Primary Improvement
Orders to the Exchange, thus increasing order flow to BOX's auction
mechanisms and benefitting all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes that under the volume base tiered fee
structure for Primary Improvement Orders, a majority of BOX
Participants reach the highest tier and are assessed the $0.02 fee
for their Primary Improvement Orders. Further, Improvement Orders
are assessed $0.12 for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and
Market Makers and $0.15 for Public Customers. Under this proposal,
SPY Primary Improvement Orders will be assessed the $0.02 flat fee
and the SPY Improvement Order will be charged $0.05 (regardless of
account type), a substantially less differential than what is
currently assessed today for SPY transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes exempting SPY COPIP and PIP Orders
from the BVR is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange notes that the BVR is meant to incentivize order flow,
which the Exchange believes is already achieved by assessing lower fees
for SPY PIP and COPIP Orders.
    The Exchange believes including SPY transactions in the Customer
Volume in Multiply Listed Options Classes for purposes of the Primary
Improvement Order tiered execution fee and BOX Volume Rebate is
reasonable as it will allow market participants to benefit from SPY PIP
and COPIP volume in terms of qualifying for these volume based
thresholds in Section I.B.1 of the Fee Schedule. Lastly, the Exchange
believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange includes the SPY PIP and COPIP
transaction volume regardless of account type.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Section III
(Liquidity Fees and Credits) are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory in that the fees and credits apply to all categories of
participants and across all account types. The Exchange notes that
liquidity fees and credits on BOX are meant to offset one another in
any particular transaction. The liquidity fees and credits do not
directly result in revenue to BOX, but simply allows BOX to provide
incentives to Participants to attract order flow. The Exchange also
believes the proposed liquidity fees and credits for SPY PIP and COPIP
transactions are reasonable as they mirror the structure of liquidity
fees and credits currently in place for PIP and COPIP transactions on
BOX. Further, the Exchange notes that Phlx assesses fees and offers
rebates for removing or adding liquidity in SPY.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing for SPY options in PIP and COPIP transactions promotes
competition in this highly liquid option. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed changes will burden competition by creating a
disparity between the fees an Initiating Participant in the PIP or
COPIP auction pays and the fees a competitive responder pays that would
result in certain Participants being unable to compete with initiators.
In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these
Participants from adding liquidity and competing in the auction
mechanisms and will help promote competition by providing incentives
for market participants to submit SPY PIP or COPIP order flow to BOX
and thus, create a greater opportunity for customers to receive
additional price improvement.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed liquidity fees and
credits for SPY PIP and COPIP transactions will not impose a burden on
competition. Rather, BOX believes that the changes

will result in Participants being charged or credited appropriately for
their PIP and COPIP transactions and is designed to enhance competition
in Auction transactions on BOX. Submitting an order is entirely
voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order they wish
to submit, if any, to the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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
    Exchange Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\15\ because it
establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2018-36 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-BOX-2018-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2018-36, and should be submitted on
or before January 9, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27411 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23400]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09525]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71987; File No. SR-CME-2014-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Adoption of Rule 980.F

April 22, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On March 4, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-CME-2014-07 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 19, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposed change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-71719 (March 13,
2014), 79 FR 15380 (March 19, 2014) (SR-CME-2014-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    CME is proposing to amend CME Rule 980, which sets out required
records and reports for clearing members of CME, by adding a new
paragraph F. The new paragraph would provide for administrative fees to
be imposed for late submissions of reports and other financial
information to CME's Financial and Regulatory Surveillance Department
(``FRSD''). Pursuant to the additional language, CME's FRSD would be
able to assess clearing members a $1,000 administrative fee for each
required submission that is not received by the due date and time. The
proposed additional language would also give the FRSD the discretion to
waive assessment of the administrative fee for good cause shown.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such self-regulatory organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \5\ requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency are designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency and for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act.\6\ The proposed change
provides CME with the ability to assess a $1,000 administrative fee
upon clearing members for late submissions of financial information to
CME's FRSD. This fee will supplement, not replace, the existing
processes that impose additional disciplinary sanctions in appropriate
circumstances. The proposed rule change is intended to address timely
reporting of required financial information by clearing members and is
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \7\
of promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives
agreements, contracts, and transactions, and helping to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CME-2014-07) be, and
hereby is, approved.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09525 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51590-51592]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0590; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01395-T;
Amendment 39-22134; AD 2022-16-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100
& 440) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that a
certain nondestructive test (NDT) procedure associated with a certain
airworthiness limitation for inspecting surface and subsurface fatigue
cracks at certain fuselage stations does not address all required
inspections. This AD requires using a revised NDT procedure when
performing an airworthiness limitation task. This AD also prohibits the
use of earlier revisions of that NDT procedure. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 27, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des
Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone
450-990-7272; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
www.mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0590.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0590; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deep Gaurav, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-47, dated December 13,
2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-47) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0590.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation
ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2022 (87 FR 32365).
The NPRM was prompted by a determination that a certain NDT procedure
associated with a certain airworthiness limitation for inspecting
surface and subsurface fatigue cracks at fuselage station (FS) 460 and
FS513 does not address all required inspections. The NPRM proposed to
require using a revised NDT procedure when performing an airworthiness
limitation task. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the use of earlier
revisions of that NDT procedure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
such fatigue cracks, which could result in failure of the pressure
floor skin and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane during
flight. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ Aviation ULC has issued MHI RJ CRJ200 NDTM Temporary
Revision 53-109, dated March 5, 2021. This temporary revision describes
an NDT procedure to do a special detailed inspection (eddy current
inspection) for surface and subsurface cracks at FS460 and FS513. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 427 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510...........................              $0             $510         $217,770
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2022-16-05 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22134; Docket No. FAA-2022-0590;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01395-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 27,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers 7003 through 8079 inclusive, on which
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-53-067 and/or Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-53-077 has been incorporated.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain
nondestructive test procedure associated with a certain
airworthiness limitation for inspecting surface and subsurface
fatigue cracks at fuselage station (FS) 460 and FS513 does not
address all required inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address such fatigue cracks, which could result in failure of the
pressure floor skin and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane during flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Procedure Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, use MHI RJ CRJ200
Nondestructive Testing Manual (NDTM) Part 6--Eddy Current, procedure
number 53-41-194, Special Detailed Inspection of the Pressure Floor
at FS460.00 and/or FS513.00 Between LBL18.00 and RBL18.00, as
specified in MHI RJ CRJ200 NDTM Temporary Revision 53-109, dated
March 5, 2021, when performing airworthiness limitation task number
53-41-194.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): MHI RJ CRJ200 NDTM Temporary Revision
53-109, dated March 5, 2021, revises procedure number 53-41-194
specified in airworthiness limitation task number 53-41-194, which
can be found in Appendix B, Airworthiness Limitations, in Part 2,
Airworthiness Requirements, of the MHI RJ CL-600-2B19 Maintenance
Requirements Manual, CSP A-053.

(h) Maintenance Procedure Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, it is prohibited to use MHI
RJ CRJ200 NDTM Part 6--Eddy Current, procedure number 53-41-194,
dated October 10, 2020, or earlier revisions when performing
airworthiness limitation task number 53-41-194.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the
airplane can be inspected, provided the flight is a non-revenue
flight.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-47, dated December 13, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket at
www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2022-0590.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MHI RJ CRJ200 Nondestructive Testing Manual Temporary
Revision 53-109, dated March 5, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des Grandes-
Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected];
internet www.mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 28, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18113 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 53578]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC); Notice of Public
Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the AAAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 23, 2023, between the hours
of 1:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
    Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by
August 16, 2023.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than August 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the FAA Headquarters, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. In-person attendance is
limited to Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee members and selected
FAA support staff. Members of the public who wish to observe the
meeting through virtual means can access the livestream on the
following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event: https://www.facebook.com/FAA or https://www.youtube.com/FAAnews. For copies of
meeting minutes along with all other information, please visit the AAAC
Internet website at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/advanced_aviation_advisory_committee/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Kolb, Advanced Aviation Advisory
Committee Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any committee-
related request or reasonable accommodation request should be sent to
the person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The AAAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) to provide the FAA with advice on key drone and advanced air
mobility (AAM) integration issues by helping to identify challenges and
prioritize improvements.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

 Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer
 Approval of the Agenda and Minutes
 Opening Remarks
 FAA Update
 Industry-Led Technical Topics
 New Business/Agenda Topics
 Closing Remarks
 Adjourn

    Additional details will be posted on the AAAC Internet website
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least 5 days in advance of
the meeting.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public via livestream. Members of
the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the
livestream on the following FAA social media platforms on the day of
the event, https://www.facebook.com/FAA or https://www.youtube.com/FAAnews. The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to
providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you
need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as
sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. Written statements submitted by the deadline will be
provided to the AAAC members before the meeting. Any member of the
public may submit a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 2023.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-16960 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9452-9454]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0050; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3]

Proposed Establishment of Canadian Area Navigation (RNAV) Route
T-705; Northeastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to establish Canadian area navigation
(RNAV) route T-705 in the Northeastern United States (U.S.). This
proposal would extend the Canadian Route into U.S. airspace. The FAA is
proposing this action at the request of NAVCANADA and the Boston Air
Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) to expand the availability of RNAV
routing and fill a gap in routing in northeastern New York that
resulted from the decommissioning of the Plattsburgh, NY, VHF
Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
(800) 647-5527 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-
2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would support the route structure in the northeastern
United States to expand the availability of RNAV routing.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0050 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-3.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA
30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017 and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.11B
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 to establish Canadian RNAV route T-705 by
extending the Canadian route into U.S. airspace. T-705 currently
extends between the IKNAR, Canada, waypoint (WP) located approximately
90 nautical miles (NM) north of Montreal, Canada, and the DUNUP,
Canada, WP located approximately 25 NM southeast of Montreal. This
proposal would extend T-705 from the DUNUP, Canada, WP through the
EBDOT, Canada WP, then into U.S. airspace via the LATTS, NY, and PBERG,
NY, WPs. From the PBERG WP, the route would proceed to the RIGID, NY,
fix, and from that point, it would overlie VOR Federal airway V-196 to
the Utica, NY, VORTAC. The amended T-705 would provide continuous RNAV
routing between Utica, NY, and Montreal, Canada, and points north of
Montreal to the IKNAR, Canada, WP.
    Canadian area navigation routes that extend into United States
airspace are published in paragraph 6013 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated
August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The area navigation route listed in this
document would be subsequently published in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017 and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6013 Canadian Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-705 Utica, NY (UCA) to IKNAR, Canada [New]

Utica, NY (UCA)                   VORTAC            (Lat. 43[deg]01'35.45'' N, long. 75[deg]09'52.28'' W)
USICI, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 43[deg]11'23.04'' N, long. 75[deg]03'06.15'' W)
GACKE, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 43[deg]19'11.10'' N, long. 74[deg]57'40.88'' W)
BECKS, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 43[deg]32'56.63'' N, long. 74[deg]48'03.47'' W)
SMAIR, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 44[deg]03'32.47'' N, long. 74[deg]26'20.99'' W)
FOSYU, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 44[deg]12'25.39'' N, long. 74[deg]19'58.15'' W)
Saranac Lake, NY (SLK)            VOR/DME           (Lat. 44[deg]23'04.41'' N, long. 74[deg]12'16.21'' W)
RIGID, NY                         Fix               (Lat. 44[deg]35'19.53'' N, long. 73[deg]44'34.07'' W)
PBERG, NY                         WP                (Lat. 44[deg]42'06.25'' N, long. 73[deg]31'22.18'' W)
LATTS, NY                         WP                (Lat. 44[deg]51'29.78'' N, long. 73[deg]32'29.26'' W)
EBDOT, CD                         WP                (Lat. 45[deg]05'25.23'' N, long. 73[deg]34'01.25'' W)
DUNUP, CD                         WP                (Lat. 45[deg]17'34.90'' N, long. 73[deg]35'21.89'' W)
TAMKO, CD                         INT               (Lat. 46[deg]02'54.00'' N, long. 73[deg]54'39.00'' W)
LIVBA, CD                         WP                (Lat. 46[deg]14'17.05'' N, long. 73[deg]57'05.38'' W)
NOSUT, CD                         WP                (Lat. 46[deg]21'38.00'' N, long. 73[deg]58'38.00'' W)
IKNAR, CD                         WP                (Lat. 47[deg]11'35.44'' N, long. 74[deg]09'31.38'' W)

Excluding the airspace within Canada.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2018.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-04415 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58228-58229]
[DOCID:fr06oc08-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications; Public Notice

September 30, 2008.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions

made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that
the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto
in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only
when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified
below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall
serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list
for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR
385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                                     Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Docket No.                    File date                  Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP08-130-000, et al.......................      9-16-08  Hon. Joe Barton.
2. CP08-429-000..............................      9-17-08  Hon. Jon C. Porter.
3. EC08-124-000..............................      9-17-08  Hon. Christopher S. Murphy.
4. ER08-1113-000.............................      9-22-08  Hon. George Radanovich.
5. ER08-1281-000.............................      9-16-08  Hon. Donald Kasprzak.
6. ER08-1281-000.............................      9-18-08  Hon. Donald L. Carcieri.
7. ER08-1281-000.............................      9-29-08  Hon. Charles Schumer.\1\
8. P-1864-083................................      9-29-08  Jean Potvin.
9. P-2210-169................................      9-30-08  Warren D. Price.\2\
                                               ...........  Mollie H. Holmes.
10. P-13178-000..............................      9/17/08  Roger Eddy.
11. PF08-6-000, CP08-431-000.................      9/23/08  Hon. George V. Voinovich.
  12. PF08-6-000, CP08-431-000                     9/19/08  Hon. Sherrod Brown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo to file and record for September 17, 2008 meeting.
\2\ One of four letters/e-mails filed in the Smith Mountain Lake proceeding. The other commenters: John Lindsey,
  Karen and Jerry Over and Reba Dillon.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23505 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41186-41187]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-1712]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight
Attendant Fatigue Risk Management Plan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on December 16, 2022. The collection involves submission of
Fatigue Risk Management Plans (FRMP) for flight attendants of
certificate holders. The certificate holders will submit the
information to be collected to the FAA for review and acceptance as
required by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0789.
    Title: Flight Attendant Fatigue Risk Management Plan.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on December 16, 2022 (87 FR 77158). On October 5, 2018,
Congress enacted Public Law 115-254, the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (``the Act''). Section 335(b) of the Act required each certificate
holder operating under 14 CFR part 121 to submit to the FAA for review
and acceptance a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for each
certificate holder's flight attendants. Section 335(b) contains the
required contents of the FRMP, including a rest scheme consistent with
current flight time and duty period limitations and development and use
of methodology to continually assess the effectiveness of the ability
of the plan to improve alertness and mitigate performance errors.
Section 335(b) requires that each certificate holder operating under 14
CFR part 121 shall update its FRMP every two years and submit the
update to the FAA for review and acceptance. Further, section 335(b) of
the Act requires each certificate holder operating under 14 CFR part
121 to comply with its FRMP that is accepted by the FAA.
    Respondents: 55 Part 121 Air Carriers and 2 new entrants.
    Frequency: 1 initial submission and then updates every 2 years.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 Hours for Initial
Submission, 5 Hours for Updates.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 40 Hours per year for Initial
Submission, 275 Hours per year for updates.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2023.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2023-13419 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29947-29948]
[FR Doc No: E9-14770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2009-0401]

Safety Zone; Red, White, and Blue Tahoe Fireworks Display, Lake
Tahoe, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce Red, White, and Blue Tahoe
Fireworks Display safety zone from 5 p.m. on July 3, 2009 through 10
p.m. on July 4, 2009 in position 39[deg]14'16'' N, 119[deg]53'59'' W
(NAD83). This action is necessary to control vessel traffic and to
ensure the safety of event participants and spectators. During the
enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone,
unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 5 p.m.
on July 3, 2009 through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Simone Mausz, U.S. Coast Guard,
Waterways Safety Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the annual Red, White, and Blue Tahoe Fireworks Display in 33 CFR
165.1191 on July 4, 2009. The fireworks launch site is approximately
700 feet off the shore line of Incline Village in Crystal Bay in
position 39[deg]14'16'' N, 119[deg]53'59'' W (NAD83).

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 8, 2009.
P.M. Gugg,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Francisco .
[FR Doc. E9-14770 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23023-23026]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08948]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77613; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Proposed Rule
Change To Modify Chapter VII Section B of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule

April 13, 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 April 1, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Section B of the NASDAQ PHLX LLC
Pricing Schedule (``Pricing Schedule'') in Chapter VII separately to
identify streaming quote interface (``SQF'') Purge Ports and to set the
fees applicable to SQF Purge Ports. The Exchange also is making
technical, non-substantive modifications to the certain existing
provisions in Chapter VII, Section B.
    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 the proposal is to modify Chapter VII, Section B of
the Exchange's Pricing Schedule separately to identify SQF Purge Ports
and to set the fees applicable to SQF Purge Ports. Active SQF Ports
today allow purging, however the Exchange does not separately identify
such ports or assess a fee for SQF Purge Ports.
    The SQF Port (known as ``Active SQF Port'') \3\ is an interface
that enables Specialists,\4\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \5\ and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') \6\ (together known as
``Market Makers'') to connect and send quotes into the Exchange's
trading system and receive certain information.\7\ Market Makers rely
on data available through Active SQF Ports to provide them the
necessary information for risk control and risk management so that they
can perform market making activities in a swift and meaningful way.
Active SQF Ports allow Market Makers to access information such as
execution reports, execution report messages, auction notifications,
and administrative data through a single feed. Other data that is
available includes: (1) Options Auction Notifications (e.g., opening
imbalance, market exhaust, PIXL or other information); (2) Options
Symbol Directory Messages; (3) System Event Messages (e.g., start of
messages, start of system hours, start of quoting, start of opening);
(4) Complex Order Strategy Auction Notifications (COLA); (5) Complex
Order Strategy messages; (6) Option Trading Action Messages (e.g.,

trading halts, resumption of trading); and (7) Complex Strategy Trading
Action Messages (e.g., trading halts, resumption of trading). In
addition to Active SQF Ports being used to send quotes and to receive
information needed for market making activities, Active SQF Ports now
can be also used for purging quotes. Such Active SQF Ports enable
Market Makers to seamlessly manage their ability to remove their quotes
in a swift manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Current SQF Ports are known as ``Active SQF Ports'' in the
Pricing Schedule to signify that such ports are fee liable when they
receive inbound quotes at any time within that month ($1,250 per
port per month up to a maximum of $42,000 per month).
    \4\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist. See Phlx Rule 1020(a).
    \5\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as a
Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
in options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \6\ An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an
ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading
floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to
generate and submit option quotations electronically in options to
which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such
quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63034 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62441 (October 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Active Purge Port currently can be configured as a ``Purge-
only'' port utilized for the sole purpose of purging option interest
from the Exchange's system and allowing entry of underlying-level
purges for a specified range of options.\8\ Such dedicated ports reduce
the amount of data flowing through Active SQF Ports. A purge of options
quoted on the SQF interface is reported via a ``Purge Notification''
message that identifies who submitted the purge and the underlying
symbols.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If a Market Maker wants to re-enter an option contract after
it was purged, the Market Maker is required to specify a re-entry
indicator on the first quote following a purge.
    \9\ For additional information regarding SQF Purge Ports, as
well as SQF generally, see http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/TradingProducts/sqfnom2.0.pdf. This
document applies to the Exchange, to the Nasdaq Options Market, and
to the BX Options Market, all of which are options exchanges of
Nasdaq, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed SQF Purge Ports are, similar to the Active SQF Ports,
designed to assist Market Makers in the management of, and risk control
over, their quotes, particularly if the Market Makers are dealing with
large numbers of options. For example, if a Market Maker detects market
indications that may influence the direction or bias of his quotes the
Market Maker may use the proposed SQF Purge Port(s) to reduce
uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in a number of
options seamlessly to avoid unintended executions, while continuing to
evaluate the direction of the market.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VII, Section B of the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule to distinguish SQF Purge Ports from Active
SQF Ports and to add a new monthly SQF Purge Port fee. The Exchange is
also making technical, non-substantive changes to Chapter VII, Section
B to enhance clarity and readability. These changes are described in
detail below.
Change 1--SQF Purge Port Fees
    The Exchange proposes new subsection 4 of Chapter VII, Section B to
institute an SQF Purge Port Fee. The proposed fee will be $500 per port
per month for each of the first five SQF Purge Ports, and will be $100
per port per month for each port thereafter. The SQF Purge Port Fee
will be applicable to all Market Makers who elect to use SQF Purge
Ports on the Exchange. The structure of the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee
is similar to that of the current CTI \10\ Port Fee, except that the
SQF Purge Port Fee is lower for the first five ports.\11\ The following
is an example of the proposed new SQF Purge Port Fee: A Participant
that has three SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable
for $1,500 ($500 x 3). And a Participant that has seven SQF Purge Ports
would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $2,700 ($500 x 5 and $100
x 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates. A real-time
clearing trade update is a message that is sent to a member after an
execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message
containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The
Options Clearing Corporation.
    \11\ Whereas the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is $500 per port,
per month for each of the first five ports and $100 per port per
month for each port thereafter, the CTI Port Fee is $650 per port,
per month for the first five ports and $100 per port per month
thereafter. See Phlx Pricing Schedule at Chapter VII, Section B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change 2--Technical Modifications
    The Exchange is also taking the opportunity to enhance the clarity
and readability of Chapter VII, Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
First, the Exchange is numbering each port fee in a separate
subsection. Second, the Exchange is moving text from a footnote to the
body of the current Active SQF Port Fee provision. Third, the Exchange
is adding missing words to clarify that the current CTI Port Fee is per
month. Fourth, the Exchange is deleting extraneous trademark language
from the Pricing Schedule. None of these changes modifies the
application of any existing fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities which
the Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 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, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should
generally determine pricing because national market system regulation
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \14\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission \15\ (``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.\16\ 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'' at Securities Exchange Release
No. 34-51808 (June 29, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (File No. S7-10-04)).
    \15\ NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 09-
1042 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \16\ See id. at 534-535.
    \17\ See 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.' . . . .'' \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-21) at 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Market
Makers

designated SQF Purge Ports would enhance Market Makers' ability to
manage quotes, quote traffic, and their quoting obligations,\19\ which
would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange believes that the SQF Purge Ports
would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities because designating SQF Purge
Ports for purges only, and making it clear in the Pricing Schedule that
such ports are available,\20\ may encourage better use of such
dedicated ports. This may, concurrent with the Active SQF Ports that
carry quote and other information necessary for market making
activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use
of Market Makers' resources. Because SQF Purge Ports, as the name
suggests, are only available for purging and not for activities such as
order or quote entry, the SQF Purge Ports are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination but rather are designed to enable Market Makers
to manage their quoting risk and meet their heightened quoting
obligations that other market participants are not subject to, which,
in turn, benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \20\ As discussed, SQF Purge Ports will be fee liable on a
monthly basis (and not only when such ports are active), which will
help the Exchange to recoup the cost of these ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal should facilitate the
ability of the Exchange to recoup some costs associated with SQF Purge
Ports as well as provide, maintain, and improve SQF Purge Ports. The
Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons.
Change 1--SQF Purge Port Fees
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to institute a $500 per
port per month fee for each of the first 5 SQF Purge Ports and $100 per
port per month for each port thereafter is reasonable because it would
allow the Exchange to recoup technology costs. The proposed SQF Purge
Port Fee reflects the desire of the Exchange to recoup the costs of
maintaining ports. The SQF Purge Port Fee is reasonable because it
enables the Exchange to offset, in part, its costs associated with
making such ports available, including costs based on software and
hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to development, quality
assurance, and support. The structure of the Exchange's SQF Purge Port
Fee is similar to that of the current CTI Port Fee, except that the SQF
Purge Port Fee is lower for the first five ports.\21\ In addition, the
SQF Purge Port Fee is in line with costs for ports at other options
exchanges.\22\ The SQF Purge Port Fee is also reasonable because it
reflects a structure that is not novel in the options markets but
rather, as a gradated fee, is similar to that of other options
exchanges and competitive with what is offered by other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Whereas the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee is $500 per port
per month for each of the first five ports and $100 per port per
month for each port thereafter, the Phlx CTI Port Fee is $650 per
port per month for the first five ports and $100 per port per month
thereafter. NOM and BX Options CTI Port Fees are simply $650 and
$200, respectively. See NOM Chapter XV, Section 3(b) and BX Chapter
XV, Section 3(b).
    \22\ See NOM Pricing Schedule (port fees $650 or $750 per port).
See also C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') (generally
assesses port fees $500 to $1,000 depending on connectivity levels);
and NYSE AMEX Options (``AMEX'') fees (assesses a Quote Takedown
Port of $450 per port per month in excess of the number of order/
quote entry ports utilized.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, SQF Purge Ports allow Market Makers to better rely on
data available through Active SQF Ports to provide them the necessary
information for risk control and risk management so that they can
perform market making activities in a swift and meaningful way. The
Exchange believes that the progressive nature of the proposed new SQF
Purge Port Fees for Market Makers is reasonable. While the proposed SQF
Purge Port Fees will be assessed at $500 for the first five SQF Purge
Ports, for more than five ports the fees will be assessed at only $100
per SQF Purge Port per month.\23\ Market Makers on the Exchange are
valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace
and incur costs unlike other market participants because Market Makers
add value through continuous quoting \24\ and the commitment of
capital. Market Makers provide a critical liquidity function across
thousands of individual option put and call series, a function no other
market participants are obligated to perform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Upon effectiveness of this proposal, a Market Maker that
has three SQF Purge Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable
for $1,500 ($500 x 3). And a Participant that has seven SQF Purge
Ports would, on a monthly basis, be fee liable for $2,700 ($500 x 5
plus $100 x 2).
    \24\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that establishing the proposed SQF Purge Port
Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it will apply
uniformly to all similarly situated market participants. All Market
Makers that use SQF Purge Ports will be assessed the SQF Purge Port Fee
in the same way. Market Makers who do not wish to acquire a dedicated
SQF Purge Port can continue to use their Active SQF Port for purging
their quotes without requiring a new SQF Purge Port. Having the SQF
Purge Port to purge gives Market Makers choices in their preferred
technical configuration with the exchange.
Change 2--Technical Modifications
    The Exchange believes that the proposed technical modifications are
fair and reasonable in that they do not impact the application of
existing fees but simply enhance clarity and readability. Nor are the
proposed technical modifications discriminatory in any respect.

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. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to make changes to Chapter VII, Section B
to add new SQF Purge Port Fees will impose any undue burden on
competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send
order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular exchange to be excessive. Additionally, new competitors have
entered the market and still others are reportedly entering the market
shortly. These market forces ensure that the Exchange's fees remain
competitive with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that
sense, the Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because it
enables the Exchange to propose offering dedicated purge ports, SQF
Purge Ports, to the benefit of Market Makers.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and

with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited. Moreover, in terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange
notes that the proposed assessment of an SQF Purge Port Fee will be
applied uniformly to all Market Makers that use such ports but should
have no undue burden on any particular group of users. The proposal is
designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by
allowing the Exchange to recoup for certain of its connectivity costs,
while continuing to offer competitive rates to participants.
    Furthermore, in this instance the proposed SQF Purge Port Fee does
not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and
routing services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive
competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If
the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it
is likely that the Exchange will lose market share and revenue as
participants choose to abandon ports. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the
changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they
continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain order
executions.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \25\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\26\ The Exchange believes the rule change
qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2016-45 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-2016-45. 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-2016-45 and should be
submitted on or before May 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08948 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P