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

TO:	Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM:	Ryan Novak, ERG

DATE:	September 30, 2015

SUBJECT:	Index for Supporting Documentation for the Mississippi River, MO/IL Case Study Model (DCN SE05594)

This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the Mississippi River, MO/IL Case Study Model, developed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA-821-R-15-006 (DCN SE04527). The supporting documentation for this case study includes the files listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Supporting Documentation for the Mississippi River, MO/IL Case Study Model
                                 Attachment ID
                                 Document Name
                               Brief Description
                                      A1
Attachment 1: Pollutant Loadings and Design Workbook - SE05594A1
Documentation of the modeling scope, design, steam electric power plant loadings, STORET monitoring data, and DMR/TRI point source loadings evaluated for the Mississippi River, MO/IL case study model. Refer to the `ReadMe' tab of the workbook for additional information about the contents of each tab.
                                      A2
Attachment 2: WASP Model Input and Output Files - SE05594A2
These files represent the WASP model input and output files for the Mississippi River, MO/IL case study model. The WASP input file (.wif) for each pollutant and scenario represents the settings and inputs used to execute case study modeling. The output data represent the daily water column and sediment concentrations in each segment of the WASP model, for each pollutant, for baseline and each regulatory option.
                                      A3
Attachment 3: Water Quality Benchmark Exceedance Analysis - SE05594A3
The water quality analysis for the Mississippi River, MO/IL case study model. These results were generated by running a script on the raw WASP model output (see Attachment 2). The output from this script indicates the percent of daily average concentrations that each segment exceeded the water quality benchmarks and CSCL sediment benchmarks evaluated in the EA.
                                      A4
Attachment 4: Wildlife and Human Health Impacts Analysis - SE05594A4
The wildlife and human health analysis for the Mississippi River, MO/IL case study model. This workbook includes the annual average water column concentration output, generated by the WASP model, that were evaluated against the threshold concentrations determined to trigger wildlife or human health benchmark exceedances.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7681-7683]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0944; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00800-G;
Amendment 39-21925; AD 2022-03-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH &
Co. KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by GROB Aircraft AG, Grob
Aerospace GmbH i.l., Grob Aerospace GmbH, Burkhart Grob Luft--und
Raumfahrt GmbH & Co. KG) Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG (type certificate
previously held by GROB Aircraft AG, Grob Aerospace GmbH i.l., Grob
Aerospace GmbH, Burkhart Grob Luft--und Raumfahrt GmbH & Co. KG) Model
G102 ASTIR CS, G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, G103A TWIN II ACRO, G103C
TWIN III ACRO, and G 103 C TWIN III SL gliders. This AD was prompted by
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as corrosion on the elevator control pushrod. This AD
requires inspecting the elevator control pushrod for water and
corrosion and replacing the pushrod if necessary. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 17, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG, Steige 3, D-
88487 Walpertshofen, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 7353 22 43; email:
Lindner.com">[email protected]Lindner.com; website: https://www.ltb-lindner.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0944.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0944; 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
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: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fiberglas-Technik
Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG Model G102 ASTIR CS, G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103
TWIN II, G103A TWIN II ACRO, G103C TWIN III ACRO, and G 103 C TWIN III
SL gliders. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 29,
2021 (86 FR 59903). The NPRM was prompted by MCAI originated by the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD
2020-0138, dated June 19, 2020 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition on Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf
Lindner GmbH & Co. KG Model G102 ASTIR CS, G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN
II, G103A TWIN II ACRO, G103C TWIN III ACRO, and G 103 C TWIN III SL
gliders. The MCAI states:

    During a routine inspection, a severely corroded elevator
control pushrod was found in the vertical fin on a Grob TWIN ASTIR
sailplane. The technical investigation results revealed that water
had soaked into the elevator control pushrod, causing the corrosion
damage and subsequent considerable weakening of the steel tube
pushrod.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the elevator control pushrod, possibly resulting in loss
of control of the sailplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Fiberglas-Technik R. Lindner
GmbH & Co.KG published the [technische mitteilung/service bulletin]
TM/SB and [anweisung/

instructions] A/I-G09, at original issue, providing instructions for
elevator control pushrod inspection and replacement. Prompted by
this development, EASA issued AD 2020-0121 to require a one-time
inspection of the elevator control pushrod in the vertical fin and,
depending on findings, replacement.
    After EASA AD 2020-0121 was issued, it was determined that Grob
G 103 ``TWIN II'' sailplanes, and additional Grob G 103 A ``TWIN II
ACRO'' sailplanes, are also prone to elevator control pushrod
corrosion and Fiberglas-Technik R.Lindner GmbH & Co.KG issued the
TM/SB to make the inspection instructions applicable to these
sailplane models.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2020-0121, which is superseded, and expands
the Applicability.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0944.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung/
Instructions (A/I-G09), Revision 1, dated May 14, 2020. This service
information provides instructions to inspect the elevator control
pushrod for water and corrosion, replace the elevator control pushrod
if any water or corrosion is found, and apply corrosion prevention if
no water and no corrosion are found. 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
ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Service
Bulletin (SB-G09), Revision 1, dated May 14, 2020. This service
information refers to the instructions in A/I-G09 to inspect and
replace the elevator control pushrod on various gliders.
    The FAA reviewed Grob TFE Service Bulletin TM 315-34, dated
December 8, 1987. This service information provides effectivity,
reason, and high-level instructions for inspecting and replacing the
elevator control pushrod on certain Model G 103 A TWIN II ACRO gliders.
    The FAA reviewed Grob TFE Repair Instructions No. 315-34 for
Service Bulletin TM 315-34, dated December 8, 1987. This service
information provides more detailed instructions for inspecting and
replacing the elevator control pushrod on certain Model G 103 A TWIN II
ACRO gliders.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to Model ASTIR CS 77, ASTIR CS Jeans, CLUB ASTIR
II, STANDARD ASTIR II, TWIN ASTIR TRAINER, GROB G 103 C ``TWIN III,''
ASTIR CS 77 TOP, ASTIR CS JEANS TOP, and ASTIR CS TOP gliders. This AD
does not apply to these model gliders because they do not have an FAA
type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 149 gliders of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates that it would take about 4 work-hours per
glider to inspect the elevator control pushrod and require parts
costing $100. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, the FAA estimates the cost to inspect the elevator
control pushrod on U.S. operators to be $65,560 or $440 per glider.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that for gliders with water or
corrosion within the elevator control pushrod, replacement would take
about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $500. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates
the cost to replace the elevator control pushrod on U.S. operators to
be $1,180 per glider.

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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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:

2022-03-08 Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG (Type
Certificate Previously Held by GROB Aircraft AG, Grob Aerospace GmbH
i.l., Grob Aerospace GmbH, Burkhart Grob Luft--und Raumfahrt GmbH &
Co. KG): Amendment 39-21925; Docket No. FAA-2021-0944; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-00800-G.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 17, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following gliders, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category:
    (1) Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG (type
certificate previously held by GROB Aircraft AG, Grob Aerospace GmbH
i.l., Grob Aerospace GmbH, Burkhart Grob Luft--und Raumfahrt GmbH &
Co. KG, GROB TFE, GROB-WERKE GMBH & CO KG (a division of Burkhart
Grob Flugzeugbau)) Model G102 ASTIR CS.
    (2) Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG (type
certificate previously held by GROB Aircraft AG, Grob Aerospace GmbH
i.l., Grob Aerospace GmbH, Burkhart Grob Luft--und Raumfahrt GmbH &
Co. KG) Model G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, G103A TWIN II ACRO,
G103 C TWIN III ACRO, and G 103 C TWIN III SL.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2730, Elevator
Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion on the
elevator control pushrod. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in failure of the elevator control pushrod and loss of
control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD, inspect the elevator control pushrod in the
vertical fin for water and corrosion and replace the elevator
control pushrod before further flight if there is any water or
corrosion in accordance with the Actions and Instructions, paragraph
3, of Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung/Instructions (A/I-
G09), Revision 1, dated May 14, 2020.
    (2) If no water and no corrosion is detected, before further
flight, treat the inside of the elevator control pushrod with
corrosion preventative LPS 3 or equivalent.
    (3) If required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, you must replace
the elevator control pushrod before further flight with an elevator
control pushrod that has zero hours TIS or with an elevator control
pushrod that has passed the inspection in accordance with paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD if you performed these actions before the
effective date of this AD using Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner
Anweisung/Instructions (A/I-G09), dated April 8, 2020.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0138, dated June 19, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0944.

(k) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung/Instructions (A/
I-G09), Revision 1, dated May 14, 2020.

    Note 1 to paragraph (k)(2)(i): This service information contains
German to English translation. EASA used the English translation in
referencing the document from Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner. For
enforceability purposes, the FAA will cite the service information
in English as it appears on the document.

    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG, Steige 3, D-88487
Walpertshofen, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 7353 22 43; email: Lindner.com">[email protected]Lindner.com; website: https://www.ltb-lindner.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106. 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 20, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02717 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64409-64411]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65541; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-31]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

October 12, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 30, 2011, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or the ``EDGX'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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

Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the charge assessed for removing
liquidity fromthe Exchange from $0.0030 per share to $0.0029 per share.
In the Exchange's feeschedule, these modifications are reflected in
Flags N, W, 6 and PI, where liquidityis removed. The Exchange proposes
adding footnote 12 to state that a removal rate of$0.0029 per share
applies where an MPID's add liquidity ratio is equal to or greaterthan
10%. The add liquidity ratio is defined as ``added'' flags/(``added''
flags + ``removal'' flags) x 100, where added flags includeB, H, V, Y,
MM, 3, or 4 and removal flags include MT, N, W, PI, or 6. The
removalrate of $0.0029 per share applies to single MPIDs only as share
volume calculationsfor wholly owned affiliates cannot be aggregated
across multiple MPIDs on aprospective basis. The Exchange also proposes
to add language to state that theremoval rate of $0.0030 per share will
apply where a Member does not meet the addliquidity ratio of at least
10%.
    The Exchange proposes to add the RR Flag for orders that are routed
to the EDGA Exchange and remove liquidity using routing strategies IOCX
and IOCT, as defined in Exchange Rules 11.9(b)(3)(l) and (m). The
Exchange proposes to assess a charge of $0.0007 per share to account
for the pass-through of the proposed EDGA fee for removing liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes to add the PI Flag to the fee schedule for
orders that

remove liquidity from the EDGX Exchange against the Midpoint Match, as
defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7). The Exchange proposes to assess a
charge of $0.0029 per share, which corresponds to the proposed fee of
$0.0029 per share assessed for removing liquidity from the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to incorporate the H Flag for Non-Displayed
Orders that add liquidity, as defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(8), but
not including Midpoint Match Orders. The Exchange proposes to provide a
rebate of $0.0015 per share.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the FIX (ECN Translator) \4\
logical port fee effective as of October 1, 2011, as the ECN Translator
is no longer being used by its Members and non-members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ECN Translator allows a Member or non-member who
previously connected to Direct Edge's ECN to be re-directed
automatically to EDGX Exchange, Inc. It can only be accessed through
a FIX port.
    \5\ Members were notified on May 3, 2011 that the ECN Translator
ports would no longer be available as of August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make technical amendments to Flags MM and
MT to add ``using Midpoint Match order type'' to further clarify the
order types where the fees will be assessed.
    The Exchange proposes to make a technical amendment to footnote 9
by adding ``per share'' to clarify that the fee will be calculated on a
per share basis.
    The Exchange also proposes to make technical amendments to the
membership fee table included in the fee schedule to eliminate the word
``proposed'' since these fees were effective on September 1, 2011 \6\
and add the word ``will'' to footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-65189 (August 24,
2011), 76 FR 53990 (August 30, 2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on October 1, 2011.
Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Exchange Act,\7\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed decrease in rate for
removing liquidity from $0.0030 per share to $0.0029 per share provided
that a certain add liquidity ratio is met by Members (and the
conforming flag changes to flags N, W, 6, and PI) represents an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. The
Exchange believes that this decreased fee to Members would incent
further liquidity to the Exchange and provide an incentive for Members
to provide liquidity that supports the quality of price discovery and
promotes market transparency. The tier rewards Members who provide
liquidity to the Exchange (at least a 10% add liquidity ratio), and
provides a decreased fee that is reasonably related to the value to the
exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. Such similar
ratios are also used by NYSE Arca.\9\ Such increased volume also
increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and would allow the
Exchange to spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a
greater number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower
per share costs would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of a lower fee. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64593 (June 3,
2011), 76 FR 33380 (June 8, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-34) (introducing
Investor Tier 1 and Investor Tier 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to apply a removal rate of
$0.0029 per share to single MPIDs only, which is consistent with the
precedent set forth by NASDAQ in its fee schedule, where it gives
different rates for liquidity ``added through any single MPID'' versus
liquidity ``added by firms'' as whole.\10\ The Exchange believes this
competitive pricing promotes increased liquidity provision to EDGX by
each individual MPID, which supports the quality of price discovery and
promotes market transparency. At this time, the Exchange approximates
that more than 250 MPIDs will qualify for this reduced rate. In
footnote 12 of the fee schedule, the Exchange states that a removal
rate of $0.0029 per share cannot be aggregated across multiple MPIDs on
a prospective basis because the Exchange does not want to incidentally
reward MPID(s) that do not contribute to this liquidity provision. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that
it applies uniformly to all Members and MPIDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for the PI flag of
$0.0029 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges since the fee is in line with standard
rate for removal of liquidity from the Exchange of $0.0029 per
share.\11\ The PI flag will increase transparency for Members as well
as enable them to track their orders that execute against the Midpoint
Match and result in price improvement. The Exchange also believes that
the PI Flag will afford the Exchange the flexibility to offer
additional cost savings and/or price discounts for orders that offer
price improvements in the future. Similarly, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that the PI flag is to be contrasted
with the MT flag in that the PI flag results from an incidental
match against Midpoint Match, while the MT flag results from a
Member intentionally sending order flow through Midpoint Match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed charge associated with the
RR flag ($0.0007 per share) represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges since it reflects a pass
through of the proposed EDGA fee for removing liquidity of $0.0007 per
share. The RR Flag will only apply to orders incorporating routing
strategies IOCX or IOCT, which are the Exchange's only two routing
strategies that solely sweep EDGX and then route the balance of the
order to EDGA. The RR Flag differs from the I Flag because the RR Flag
is the result of two routing strategies that target EDGA, and the I
Flag is the result of multiple routing strategies that execute at EDGA
amongst other destinations. In addition, the Exchange believes the
resulting effect of the RR Flag is consistent with similar strategies
that solely target one other away exchange such as ROBA, ROBY and ROPA
(and also pass on the removal rate of those respective exchange),
pursuant to Exchange Rules 11.9(b)(3)(e), 11.9(b)(3)(g) and
11.9(b)(3)(k). In addition, EDGX believes that it is reasonable and
equitable to pass on these fees to its members. The Exchange believes
that the proposed charge is non-discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate of $0.0015 per share
for adding non-displayed orders to the EDGX book represents an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as it
is designed to incentivize Members to add hidden liquidity to the book,
but not reward them as much as those who offer displayed liquidity
(standard rebate of $0.0023 per share). The Exchange implemented the H
Flag in order to differentiate between the relative value (and rebates)
of non-displayed orders and displayed orders. In addition, the rate is
[sic] line with other similar

exchange rebates offered for hidden liquidity by BATS (rebate of
$0.0017 per share), Nasdsaq tiered rate of .0010/.0015), and NYSE Arca
(rebate of $0.0015 per share). The Exchange believes that the proposed
rebate is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all
Members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the FIX (ECN
Translator) logical port fee represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as the ECN Translator is no
longer used by any Members and therefore, its elimination will not
impact any Members. The proposed elimination of the fee also provides
more simplicity to the fee schedule.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are non-
discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those
charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) [sic] of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an E-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-31 This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 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-EDGX-2011-31 and should be
submitted on or before November 8, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26857 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36183-36185]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14333]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9823-7]

State Allotment Percentages for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is announcing the revised Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
allotments that will be provided to the States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories, American Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Villages if the President's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2014 is enacted. These allotments reflect the results from EPA's
most recent Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment
which was released on June 3, 2013. The revised State allotment
percentages will be the basis for distributing the DWSRF program
appropriations to the States for the four years from Fiscal Years 2014
through 2017.

DATES: This notice is effective June 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For inquiries, contact Robert Barles,
Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Copies of
this document and information on the Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment and the DWSRF program can be found on EPA's
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Web site at http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/index.cfm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments established a DWSRF program. Congress directed that
allotments for FY 1998 and each subsequent year would be distributed
among States based on the results of an assessment by EPA of the
relative infrastructure investment needs of the drinking water systems
within each State (SDWA section 1452(a)(1)(D)(ii)) which must be
conducted every four years.

EPA's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment

    EPA's first assessment, which reflected 1995 survey data, was
released in 1997; the second assessment, which reflected 1999 survey
data, was released in 2001; the third assessment, which reflected the
2003 survey data, was released in 2005; and the fourth assessment,
which reflected the 2007 survey data, was released in 2009. The 2011
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (Needs
Assessment) was released on June 3, 2013 (EPA 816-R-13-006). The 2011
Needs Assessment was completed in cooperation with State and Navajo
Nation agencies with primacy for implementing the SDWA programs within
their borders. EPA regional offices facilitated the surveying of water
systems serving American Indian (AI) communities and Alaska Native
Villages (ANV). These agencies participated in both the design of the
survey and in the collection of data. The survey examined the needs of
water systems and used these data to determine the aggregate
infrastructure investment needs of drinking water systems within each
individual State and for AI/ANV systems within each EPA Region or the
Navajo Nation.
    The survey included all of the nation's 606 largest systems
(serving over 100,000 people) with 598 providing data (a response rate
of 98.7%). For the nation's 8,059 medium sized systems (each serving
3,301-100,000 people), the survey relied on a statistically-
representative random selection of 2,234 with 2,159 systems responding
(a response rate of 96.6%). For the 791 American Indian water systems,
the survey relied on a statistical random selection of 220 with 218
systems responding (a response rate of 99%). For the 165 water systems
serving Alaska Native Villages, the survey relied on a statistical
random selection of 86 systems with 84 responding (a response rate of
97.7%). The survey also sampled the 4 medium and 1 large systems of the
U.S. Territories (with a 100% response rate). For small, non-tribal
water systems (each serving less than 3,301 people), the 2011
assessment extrapolated the findings from the 2007 survey by adjusting
to 2011 dollars.
    The sample design for the survey and assessment produces a
statistically-valid State-by-State estimate of the total need, which
reflects the capital costs for all drinking water infrastructure
projects allowed for inclusion in the survey. The 2011 Needs Assessment
also presents capital needs for each State by system size and by
category of need (i.e., treatment, distribution and transmission,
storage, source and ``other'').
    In general, an infrastructure project was included in the Needs
Assessment if project documentation demonstrated that meeting the need
would address the public health objectives of SDWA. The total State
need includes both projects that are currently needed and future
projects that will be needed over the next 20 years. Projects to
correct immediate public health threats (e.g., replacing a deteriorated
filter plant) are given the same weight in the assessment as less
critical needs (e.g., replacing a

storage tank that is expected to reach the end of its useful life in
five years). The Needs Assessment excluded capital projects that are
ineligible for DWSRF program assistance such as dams, reservoirs and
projects needed solely for growth.
    The 2011 Needs Assessment found that the total national need is
$384.2 billion (Table 1). This estimate represents the needs of the
approximately 52,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit
non-community water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF program
assistance. These systems are found in all 50 States, Puerto Rico and
the District of Columbia; in the Virgin Island and Pacific Island
territories; and on American Indian lands and in Alaska Native
Villages.

 Table 1--2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment
                              20-Year Needs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Need
                        Type of need                          (billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia..................       $375.3
Territories................................................          0.7
American Indian and Alaska Native Villages.................          3.3
Costs for Proposed and Recent Regulations..................          4.9
                                                            ------------
  Total National Need......................................        384.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

    The total national need also includes $4.90 billion in capital
needs associated with recently promulgated and proposed regulations as
identified in EPA Economic Analyses accompanying the rules. Although
these needs are included in the total national need, they were not
apportioned to the States based on the unanimous recommendation of the
State representatives who participated in the survey design. The States
expressed concern that the methods available for allocating the costs
of these more recent or proposed regulations would not yet be
represented in the capital improvement plans of water systems at the
time of the 2011 survey. The total State need, which is the figure that
EPA will use to calculate the State allotments, includes only the needs
of the 50 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The 2011
Needs Assessment estimates that the total State need is $375.3 billion.

Allocation Method

    On October 31, 1996, EPA solicited public comment on six options
for using the results of the first Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey and Assessment to allocate DWSRF program funds to the States (61
FR 56231). On March 18, 1997, EPA announced its decision to allocate
DWSRF program funds for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 appropriations
based on each State's proportional share of the total eligible needs
for the States as derived from the 1995 Needs Assessment (62 FR 12900).
EPA used this same method when allocating DWSRF program funds for:
fiscal years 2002 through 2005, utilizing the results of the 1999 Needs
Assessment; fiscal years 2006 through 2009, utilizing the results of
the 2003 Needs Assessment; and fiscal years 2010 through 2013 utilizing
the results of the 2007 Needs Assessment. EPA has made the
determination that it will continue to use this method for allocating
DWSRF program funds for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 appropriations
utilizing the results of the 2011 Needs Assessment. The funds available
to the States will be the level of funds appropriated by Congress less
any national set-aside such as the set aside for American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water systems. Of the remaining funds available
to States, the SDWA includes a specific combined allocation for the
Virgin Island and Pacific Island territories and a minimum for the
District of Columbia. Each State (including Puerto Rico) will receive
an allotment of DWSRF program funds based on each State's proportional
share of the total combined need for all States and the District of
Columbia ($375.3 billion) provided that each State receives a minimum
allocation of one percent of the funds available to States, as required
by the SDWA. The 2011 Needs Assessment found that 17 States, Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia each had less than one percent of the
total national need; for 2014 to 2017, each of these will be eligible
for one percent of the annual DWSRF funds made available to States (or,
in aggregate, 19 percent of the total DWSRF funds made available to
States).

Allocation of Funds

    Table 2 contains each State's expected DWSRF program allotment
based on the President's budget request for FY 2014. The national set-
aside for Fiscal Year for American Indian and Alaska Native Village
water systems is 2.0 percent of the total appropriation or $16,340,000
for FY 2014 under the President's budget request. If funds are
appropriated for the DWSRF program at the level of $817,000,000, the
total funds available to the States, the District of Columbia and
Territories would then equal $798,660,000. Because the percentages are
based on allotting all available funds annually to the States
regardless of the year in the four-year cycle, they can be used for
general planning purposes for the entire four-year cycle. Once the 2014
and subsequent year appropriated amounts and any national set-asides
are known, a State's allotment can be estimated by subtracting any
national set-aside from the total funds available for allotment and
then applying the appropriate percentage shown below. EPA will annually
notify each State of its allotment from a specific fiscal year's
appropriation after the final budget has been passed.

   Table 2--DWSRF State Percentages and Dollar Allotments Based on the
  President's Budget Request for FY 2014 and the 2011 Needs Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                FY 2014 Allotment  2014 Allotment (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................         $15,253,000                1.91
Alaska..........................           7,987,000                1.00
Arizona.........................          14,419,000                1.81
Arkansas........................          12,220,000                1.53
California......................          75,142,000                9.41
Colorado........................          13,901,000                1.74
Connecticut.....................           8,093,000                1.01
Delaware........................           7,987,000                1.00
Florida.........................          29,211,000                3.66
Georgia.........................          17,413,000                2.18
Hawaii..........................           7,987,000                1.00

Idaho...........................           7,987,000                1.00
Illinois........................          33,328,000                4.17
Indiana.........................          12,955,000                1.62
Iowa............................          11,945,000                1.50
Kansas..........................           9,102,000                1.14
Kentucky........................          12,434,000                1.56
Louisiana.......................          10,950,000                1.37
Maine...........................           7,987,000                1.00
Maryland........................          13,555,000                1.70
Massachusetts...................          14,846,000                1.86
Michigan........................          24,858,000                3.11
Minnesota.......................          14,291,000                1.79
Mississippi.....................           8,270,000                1.04
Missouri........................          16,123,000                2.02
Montana.........................           7,987,000                1.00
Nebraska........................           7,987,000                1.00
Nevada..........................          11,390,000                1.43
New Hampshire...................           7,987,000                1.00
New Jersey......................          15,195,000                1.90
New Mexico......................           7,987,000                1.00
New York........................          38,334,000                4.80
North Carolina..................          18,686,000                2.34
North Dakota....................           7,987,000                1.00
Ohio............................          22,200,000                2.78
Oklahoma........................          12,868,000                1.61
Oregon..........................          11,344,000                1.42
Pennsylvania....................          25,536,000                3.20
Puerto Rico.....................           7,987,000                1.00
Rhode Island....................           7,987,000                1.00
South Carolina..................           7,987,000                1.00
South Dakota....................           7,987,000                1.00
Tennessee.......................           7,987,000                1.00
Texas...........................          57,746,000                7.23
Utah............................           8,334,000                1.04
Vermont.........................           7,987,000                1.00
Virginia........................          13,232,000                1.66
Washington......................          17,825,000                2.23
West Virginia...................           7,987,000                1.00
Wisconsin.......................          13,928,000                1.74
Wyoming.........................           7,987,000                1.00
District of Columbia............           7,987,000                1.00
U.S. Territories *..............          11,980,000                1.50
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Funds Available to the         798,660,000  ..................
     States, the District of
     Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
     U.S. Territories...........
American Indian & Alaska Native           16,340,000  ..................
 Water Systems..................
Monitoring for Unregulated                 2,000,000  ..................
 Contaminants...................
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total SRF Appropriation.....         817,000,000  ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
  Northern Mariana Islands.

    Dated: June 6, 2013.
Peter C. Grevatt,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2013-14333 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 56249]
[DOCID:fr30oc09-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on November 2, 2009,
at 10 a.m., in Room 10800, to hear oral argument on an appeal by Guy P.
Riordan from an initial decision of an administrative law judge. The
law judge found that, from around 1996 to December 2002, Riordan, a
former registered representative associated with Wachovia Securities,
LLC, in its Albuquerque, New Mexico, branch office, violated the
antifraud provisions by making secret cash payments to the New Mexico
State Treasurer in exchange for securities business from the
Treasurer's Office. The law judge barred Riordan from associating with
any broker or dealer; imposed a cease-and-desist order; ordered
disgorgement of $1,017,278.78, plus prejudgment interest; and assessed
a $500,000 third-tier civil penalty.
    Among the issues likely to be argued are whether Riordan engaged in
the conduct alleged, whether that conduct constituted securities fraud
and, if so, the extent to which sanctions should be imposed.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 28, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26257 Filed 10-28-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The attached files are the following docket-related documents: ?	U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule; request for comments supersedure


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14066-14068]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82949; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Related to the Complex
Order Book

March 27, 2018

I. Introduction

    On February 2, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow market makers and option specialists to
rest orders in the Complex Order Book (``COB'') under certain
circumstances. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 16, 2018.\3\ The Commission received
no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82689 (February 12,
2018), 83 FR 7092 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE Options Rule 6.53C(c)(i) allows the Exchange to determine
which classes and which complex order origin types (i.e., non-broker-
dealer public customer, broker-dealers that are not market-makers or
specialists on an options exchange, and/or market-makers or specialists
on an options exchange) are eligible for entry into the COB and whether
such complex orders can route directly to the COB and/or from PAR to
the COB. Cboe Options has determined that the complex orders of market-
makers (origin code ``M'') and market-makers or specialists on an
options exchange (``away market-makers'') (origin code ``N'') in
options on the S&P 500 (``SPX'' and ``SPXW'') and the Cboe Volatility
Index (``VIX'') are not eligible for entry into the COB.\4\ The
Exchange proposes to amend Cboe Options Rule 6.53C(c)(i) to provide
that in a class in which the Exchange determines that the complex
orders of market-makers and

specialists on an options exchange are not eligible for entry into the
COB, the Exchange may determine that market-makers and specialists may
enter their complex orders into the COB under two circumstances. First,
market-makers and specialists will be permitted to enter their complex
orders in the COB if their orders are on the opposite side of a
priority customer complex order(s) resting in the COB with a price not
outside the national spread market (``NSM'').\5\ Cboe Options notes
that, unlike the leg markets in which market-makers provide liquidity
through quotes, market-makers are unable to submit quotes in the COB
that indicate to customers the price at which they are willing to
trade.\6\ Cboe Options believes that allowing market makers to enter
their orders in the COB will provide priority customers with
information about where market makers are willing to trade, thus
creating potential execution opportunities for priority customers whose
orders are not satisfied by the leg markets or other complex orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, 83 FR at 7092. See also Cboe Options Regulatory
Circular RG15-195. To the extent an origin type is not eligible for
entry into the COB, complex orders with that origin type may be
entered into the Exchange's System as opening-only or immediate-or-
cancel because these orders would not rest in the COB when the
Exchange is open for trading.
    \5\ See Cboe Options Rules 6.53C(c)(i)(A)(1) and 1.1(bbbb)
(defining ``national spread market'').
    \6\ See Notice, 83 FR at 7093.
    \7\ See id. See also Notice, 83 FR at 7094, Examples 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposal will allow market-makers and options
specialists to enter their complex orders in the COB if their orders
are on the opposite side of order(s) for the same strategy on the same
side that initiated a Complex Order Auction (``COA'') if there are
``x'' number of COAs within ``y'' milliseconds, counted on a rolling
basis (the Exchange will determine the number ``x'' (which must be at
least two) and time period ``y'' (which may be no more than 2,000)).\8\
Cboe Options believes that it may be difficult for market-makers to
respond to multiple auctions that occur within a short time period
while managing risk related to the amount executed during those
auctions.\9\ In this regard, the Exchange states that market-makers
have complicated risk modeling associated with their trading activity,
which factors in the size, price, and frequency at which they trade
with orders.\10\ To help ensure that a market-maker does not trade with
potentially erroneous orders and become overexposed to risk, the
Exchange states that a market-maker may set its risk controls to stop
responding to COAs when multiple COAs in a strategy occur within a
short timeframe (e.g., a market-maker may program its system to respond
only to a specific number of auctions within a time period), which
reduces auction liquidity and potential price improvement for COA
orders.\11\ The Exchange notes, however, that multiple non-erroneous
auctions in a strategy may occur within a short time period if, for
example, a market participant's algorithmic trading breaks up a large
order into a number of smaller orders.\12\ Accordingly, the proposal
will allow a market-maker that determines that it is appropriate to
trade with COA orders under these circumstances to submit an order to
the COB that would be available to trade against multiple COA orders up
to the amount the market-maker is willing to trade for the strategy
within its risk controls.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Cboe Options Rule 6.53C(c)(i)(A)(2).
    \9\ See Notice, 83 FR at 7093.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. Cboe Options notes that pursuant to Cboe Options
Rule 6.53C(d), the order of a market-maker or options specialist
resting in the COB on the opposite side of an auctioned order may be
available for execution against any contracts of the auctioned order
that did not execute during the auction. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule will require market-makers and specialists to cancel any
unexecuted complex orders in the COB no later than a specified time
(which the Exchange will determine and may be no more than five
minutes) after the time the COB receives the order.\14\ Cboe Options
states that it intends to set these parameters at levels that it
believes will permit market-makers to have sufficient time to submit
orders into the COB to participate in COAs, a determination that the
Exchange will make based on market-maker feedback, business conditions,
and data (including trading volume data and information regarding the
number of executions of market-maker orders against complex
orders).\15\ In addition, Cboe Options states the time period within
which a market-maker must cancel its complex order will provide the
market-maker with sufficient time for the opposing customer to
potentially re-price its order for execution against the market-maker's
order or for the market-maker's order to execute against an order
following a COA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Options Rule 6.53C(c)(i)(B). The Exchange will
announce to Trading Permit Holders all determinations it makes
pursuant to Cboe Options Rule 6.53C via Regulatory Circular. See
Cboe Options Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy .01. The Exchange
states that it will provide Trading Permit Holders with sufficient
advanced notice prior to changing any parameters its sets under the
proposal. See Notice, 83 FR at 7093 n.5.
    \15\ See Notice, 83 FR at 7093.
    \16\ See id. at 7094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it will have surveillance to enforce the
proposed rule change, which will monitor whether market-maker and away
market-maker orders have been entered only in the circumstances
permitted under the proposal, and whether any unexecuted orders have
been cancelled by the deadline imposed by the proposal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 7094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\18\ In particular, for the reasons discussed below, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that allowing market-makers and specialists
to enter orders in the COB on the opposite side of the market from
priority customer orders resting in the COB, or on the opposite side of
the market when orders on the same side of the market for a particular
strategy have initiated a number of COAs within a short time period, as
described more fully above, is designed to result in the provision of
additional liquidity to trade with customer orders, potentially
providing additional execution and price improvement opportunities for
those customer orders. As noted above, CBOE believes that allowing
market-makers and specialists to rest orders in the COB opposite
priority customer interest in the COB that is not outside the NSM could
provide an execution opportunity for a priority customer order that has
not executed against other complex order or leg market interest by
providing the customer with information concerning the price at which a
market maker is willing to trade with the customer's order; this
information currently is not available because the COB has no market
maker quotes indicating the price at which liquidity providers are
willing to trade against

customer orders.\20\ Allowing market-makers and specialists to place
orders in the COB following a number of COAs for the same strategy on
the same side of the market could allow a market maker to determine to
provide additional liquidity for customer orders, within the market-
maker's risk controls, in circumstances where the market-maker's system
has stopped responding to COAs.\21\ The Commission notes that Cboe
Options has represented that it will have surveillance to monitor
compliance with the requirements of the rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 83 FR at 7093.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id. at 7094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2018-016) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06569 Filed 3-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P