[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18846-18848]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07519]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0177; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-189-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report of a crew alerting system message caused by an
inversion of the wiring in the slats control manifold (SCM). This
proposed AD would require doing an operational test of the SCM, and
replacing the affected SCM with a serviceable SCM if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct inversion of the wiring in the
SCM, which could lead to a commanded retraction of the median and
outboard slats in flight, and result in reduced controllability of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0177; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0177;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-189-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0195, dated August 27, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a ferry flight, the crew of a Falcon 7X aeroplane
reported a Crew Alerting System Message ``FCS--SLATS INB EXTEND
FAIL'' with associated fault code and root cause: ``FCS SEC FCS
fault/SFCI3 fault''. The crew applied the applicable Aircraft Flight
Manual procedure and the aeroplane landed uneventfully.
    The results of the manufacturer technical investigations
concluded that the cause of this event was an inversion of the
wiring in the slats control manifold (SCM).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to un-
commanded retraction of the median and outboard slats in flight,
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
issued Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-244, with instructions for an
operational test of the SCM.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an
operational test of the SCM and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions [replacing the
affected SCM with a serviceable SCM if necessary].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0177.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin 7X-244, Revision 1,
dated July 8, 2013. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified

of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 42 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test of the Slats         1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85           $3,570
 Control Manifold.                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...............................  13 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  $0           $1,105
                                             $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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 Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2014-0177; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-189-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 19, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes,
certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 2 through
101 inclusive; 105, 106, 108 through 140 inclusive; 142 through 148
inclusive; 150 through 153 inclusive; 155, 156, 158, 162 through 164
inclusive; and 167, 169, and 173.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by report of a crew alerting system message
caused by an inversion of the wiring in the slats control manifold
(SCM). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inversion of the
wiring in the SCM, which could lead to a commanded retraction of the
median and outboard slats in flight, and result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Operational Test

    Within 600 flight hours or 9 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Do an operational test of the slats
control manifold (SCM), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244, Revision
1, dated July 8, 2013. If the operational test of the SCM fails,
before further flight, replace the affected SCM with a serviceable
SCM, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244, Revision 1, dated July 8, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-244,
February 14, 2013.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the DAH with a State of Design Authority's
design organization approval). You are required to ensure the
product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0195, dated August 27,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0177.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-07519 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33969-33970]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

46 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2001-10486]
RIN 1625-AA32

Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged
in U.S. Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register of March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17254), entitled
``Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water Discharged in
U.S. Waters.'' Six technical errors were inadvertently published in the
final rule that require correction, two in the preamble and four in the
regulatory text. The corrections are necessary for readability and
accuracy.

DATES: This correction is effective on June 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this final
rule, call or email Mr. John Morris, Project Manager, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing material on the docket, call Ms. Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule
that appeared in the Federal Register of March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17254),
entitled ``Standards for Living Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water
Discharged in U.S. Waters.'' Six technical errors were inadvertently
published in the final rule that require correction, two in the
preamble and four in the regulatory text. The corrections are necessary
for readability and accuracy.
    The first preamble correction is to the Discussion of Comments and
Changes/Summary of Changes from the NPRM/Applicability section (section
V.A.3), where we revise our response to comments about non-seagoing
vessel applicability by removing the words ``U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ)'' and replacing them with ``U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and
Canadian equivalent (EEZ; see 16 U.S.C. 4702)''. This correction is
needed to align the preamble text with the existing definition of EEZ
in 33 CFR 151.1504. The omission of the reference to the Canadian
equivalent was a technical error, as the Coast Guard did not intend to
change the applicable definition of EEZ in the discussion of the final
rule. Additionally, the word ``U.S.'' is deleted from the abbreviation
of EEZ in I. Abbreviations.
    The second correction is to the Environment section (section VII.M)
of the preamble, which incorrectly states that a separate Record of
Decision is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. By
reason of this being a rulemaking action under the Administrative
Procedure Act, the final rule constitutes the Record of Decision and it
was published on March 23, 2012, consistent with 40 CFR 1506.10(b).
    The additional corrections are to the regulatory text. The first
regulatory text corrections are to 33 CFR 151.1510(a)(1) and
151.1515(a). In those paragraphs, we delete the text ``U.S.'' prefacing
the words ``Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)''. These corrections are
needed to align with the definition of EEZ applicable to this part, 33
CFR 151.1504. Two regulatory text corrections are grammatical
corrections required to clarify 33 CFR 151.2005(b), ``Definitions'' and
46 CFR 162.060-22(a), ``Marking requirements''. The final correction,
to 46 CFR 162.060-42(a)(3), ``Responsibilities for independent
laboratories (ILs)'', corrects a mistake which had directed independent
laboratories to provide the estimated date for commencement of type-
approval testing to the ``Commandant (CG-52), Commercial Regulations
and Standards Directorate''. Notification should be provided to U.S.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Center.
    In FR doc 2012-6579 appearing on page 17254 in the issue of Friday,
March 23, 2012, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 17254, in the third column, Abbreviations section,
remove the word ``U.S.'' from the abbreviation for ``EEZ''.
    2. On page 17257, in the second column, in the last paragraph,
remove the words ``U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)'' and add, in
their place, the words ``U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and Canadian
equivalent (EEZ; see 16 U.S.C. 4702)''.
    3. On page 17304, in the first column, correct the paragraph
following ``M. Environment'' to read as follows: ``We have analyzed
this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action may have a significant effect on the human
environment. A Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES, and includes a
summary of our actions to comply with NEPA''.

Sec.  151.1510  [Corrected]

0
4. On page 17304, in the third column, in the first sentence under
Sec.  151.1510(a)(1), after the words ``waters beyond the'' remove the
text ``U.S.''.

Sec.  151.1515  [Corrected]

0
5. On page 17306, in the first column, in the first sentence under
Sec.  151.1515(a), after the words ``before entering the'' remove the
text ``U.S.''.

0
6. On page 17307, in the first column, in the second paragraph, under
Sec.  151.2005(b), revise paragraph (2) of the definition of
``Exchange'' to read as follows:

Sec.  151.2005  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Exchange * * *
    (2) Empty/refill exchange means to pump out the ballast water taken
on in ports, estuarine, or territorial waters until the pump(s) lose
suction, then refilling the ballast tank(s) with mid-ocean water.
* * * * *

Sec.  162.060-22  [Corrected]

0
7. On page 17315, in the third column, in the third paragraph, under
Sec.  162.060-22(a), remove the word ``for'' and add, in its place, the
word ``under''.

0
8. On page 17320, in the second column, in the sixth paragraph, under
Sec.  162.060-42, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  162.060-42  Responsibilities for Independent Laboratories (ILs).

    (a) * * *
    (3) Upon determination that the BWMS is ready for testing, the
independent laboratory will notify the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Center, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7102, Washington, DC
20593-7102, and provide the estimated date for commencement of type-
approval testing.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 4, 2012.
Kathryn A. Sinniger,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-13888 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16140-16141]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0165; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-1]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, for West Plains, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending up
to 700 feet above the surface at West Plains Regional Airport, West
Plains, MO, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures
for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This
action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Hutton (HUW) Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR), and cancellation of VOR
approach, and would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport. The airport's name also would be updated.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0165/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-1, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Laster, Federal Aviation
Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5879.

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
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 amend controlled airspace in Class
E.

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0165/
Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
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 the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A 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 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of West
Plains Municipal Airport and 8 miles west and 4 miles east of the
196[deg] radial of the Hutton VOR/DME extending from the Hutton VOR/DME
to 10 miles south of the Hutton VOR/DME would be removed due to the
decommissioning of the VOR, cancellation of the VOR approach. This
action would enhance the safety and management of the standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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 rule, when promulgated, would 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

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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 14 CFR 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 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 West Plains, MO

West Plains Municipal Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]52'42'' N., long. 91[deg]54'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of West Plains Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on March 22, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-06508 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19732-19734]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08413]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0312]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 69 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on February 24, 2015. The
exemptions expire on February 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fmcsamedical@ dot.gov, FMCSA, Room W64-224, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On January 23, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 69 individuals and requested
comments from the public (80 FR 3724). The public comment period closed
on February 23, 2015, and three comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 69 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 69 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 29 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the January 23, 2014, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) submitted a comment
stating, ``ATA believes that the increased volume of applications for
exemption from parts of 49 CFR 391.41 is cause for concern. The
granting of such a large number of exemptions dilutes the physical
qualification standards and constitutes regulation through exemption.
FMCSA must begin a dialogue on the need and effectiveness of these
standards. If it is determined that these standards need to be altered,
it must be done through the formal rulemaking process.'' FMCSA is
engaged in a formal rulemaking process, and is preparing to publish an
NPRM in the spring of this year.
    Scott Cleveland submitted a comment stating the Federal Register
notice did not tell him if he was approved. As stated in the notice,
all drivers listed will receive an exemption effective the day after
the close of the request for comments period, barring any negative
comments.
    An anonymous commenter submitted a comment stating that the Federal
Register notice requesting comments does not state whether people are
being granted an exemption because the comment period must end before
the final determination is made.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 69 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR
391.64(b)):

Bryan L. Anderson (WA), Travis K. Archer (ME), Michael R. Batham (CA),
Victor M. Beltran-Araujo (ID), Charles A. Best (OH), Cassandra J.
Braford (MN), Mark E. Buchholz (SD), Richard E. Buthy (NJ), George E.
Carle (CO), Jamey S. Carney (IA), Bryan D. Carpenter (NC), Michael G.
Cary (MN), John G. Castilaw (MS), Dominick Cicala (NJ), Scott E.
Clevelan (KY), Adam C. Cochran (GA), Michael R. Cummings (VA), David L.
Dalheim (NY), Brian Dick (MD), Timothy B. Duelke (ID), Cory A. Duncan
(OR), Terrence J. Dunne (NJ), David L. Eklund (IL), Yoshitsugu Endo
(NY), Barry K. Foster (TX), Robert Fugate (OH), John A. Georg (IA),
Francis J. Gernatt, Jr. (NY), Mark A. Haines (WV), Ivan G. Hanford
(OR), James L. Harman, III (VA), James R. Hoyle (TX), George E. Huften
(CT), John M. Ippolito (NY), Allan L. Jameson (NE), Erik D. Kemmer
(MN), Mark L. Knobel, Sr. (MD), Joseph E. Knox, Sr., Erik M. Lane (NY),
Jacob C. Liebl (ND), Galen H. Martin (PA), James D. Martin (IN), John
M. McCabe (IL), Kevin F. McGlade (PA), Brett J. Mellor (ID), Kenneth M.
Merritt (CA), Douglas D. Milligan (WA), Charles E. Morgan (LA), Richard
D. Neal (TN), Gary Anthony Alfred H. Nelson (FL), Robert E. Perdue
(WA), Christie M. Rose (TX), John E. Sautkulis (NY), Kevin D.
Schlichting (PA), Ronnie L. Schronce (NC), Richard A. Sharpe (MN),
William F. Smith (DE), Richard W. Stultz (IN), Robin W. Swasey (UT),
Michelle P. Thibeault (ME), Michael L. Thrasher (AL), Melinda K. Topel
(MO), Steven R. Vance (TX), William D. VanReese (MN), Ellis J. Vest,
Jr. (WV), Herbert E. Wachtel (MN), Kendall G. Webster (OR), Christopher
J. Wilson (PA), Mark P. Zimmerman (NV).

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: April 3, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08413 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 115 (Monday, June 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36249-36252]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12791]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89035; File No. SR-MIAX-2020-12)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 9, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 29, 2020, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to extend the cap
waiver of 1,000 contracts per leg for complex PRIME (``cPRIME'') \3\
Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the Priority Customer Rebate
Program (``PCRP'') \4\ until July 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``cPRIME'' is the process by which a Member may
electronically submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Rule
518(b)(7)) it represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'')
against principal or solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME
Auction''), subject to the restrictions set forth in Exchange Rule
515A, Interpretation and Policy .12. See Exchange Rule 515A.
    \4\ Under the PCRP, MIAX credits each Member the per contract
amount resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by
that Member which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all
multiply-listed option classes (excluding, in simple or complex as
applicable, QCC and cQCC Orders, mini-options, Priority Customer-to-
Priority Customer Orders, C2C and cC2C Orders, PRIME and cPRIME AOC
Responses, PRIME and cPRIME Contra-side Orders, PRIME and cPRIME
Orders for which both the Agency and Contra-side Order are Priority
Customers, and executions related to contracts that are routed to
one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Exchange
Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain percentage thresholds
in a month as described in the PCRP table. See Fee Schedule, Section
1)a)iii. ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). A ``Priority
Customer Order'' means an order for the account of a Priority
Customer. See Exchange Rule 100.

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

Background
    Exchange Rule 518(b)(7) defines a cPRIME Order as a type of complex
order \5\ that is submitted for participation in a cPRIME Auction and
trading of cPRIME Orders is governed by Rule 515A, Interpretations and
Policies .12.\6\ cPRIME Orders are processed and executed in the
Exchange's PRIME mechanism, the same mechanism that the Exchange uses
to process and execute simple PRIME orders, pursuant to Exchange Rule
515A.\7\ PRIME is a process by which a Member may electronically submit
for execution an order it represents as agent (an ``Agency Order'')
against principal interest and/or solicited interest. The Member that
submits the Agency Order (``Initiating Member'') agrees to guarantee
the execution of the Agency Order by submitting a contra-side order
representing principal interest or solicited interest (``Contra-Side
Order''). When the Exchange receives a properly designated Agency Order
for Auction processing, a request for response (``RFR'') detailing the
option, side, size and initiating price is broadcasted to MIAX Options
participants up to an optional designated limit price. Members may
submit responses to the RFR, which can be either an Auction or Cancel
(``AOC'') order or an AOC eQuote. A cPRIME Auction is the price-
improvement mechanism of the Exchange's System pursuant to which an
Initiating Member electronically submits a complex Agency Order into a
cPRIME Auction. The Initiating Member, in submitting an Agency Order,
must be willing to either (i) cross the Agency Order at a single price
against principal or solicited interest, or (ii) automatically match
against principal or solicited interest, the price and size of a RFR
that is broadcast to MIAX Options participants up to an optional
designated limit price. Such responses are defined as cPRIME AOC
Responses or cPRIME eQuotes. The PRIME mechanism is used for orders on
the Exchange's Simple Order Book.\8\ The cPRIME mechanism is used for
Complex Orders \9\ on the Exchange's Strategy Book,\10\ with the cPRIME
mechanism operates in the same manner for processing and execution of
cPRIME Orders that is used for PRIME Orders on the Simple Order Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. A complex order can also be a ``stock-option'' order,
which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying security coupled with the purchase or sale of options
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market, subject to certain
contingencies set forth in the proposed rules governing complex
orders. For a complete definition of a ``complex order,'' see
Exchange Rule 518(a)(5). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 78620 (August 18, 2016), 81 FR 58770 (August 25, 2016) (SR-MIAX-
2016-26).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81131 (July 12,
2017), 82 FR 32900 (July 18, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-19). (Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend MIAX Options
Rules 515, Execution of Orders and Quotes; 515A, MIAX Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism;
and 518, Complex Orders).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ The ``Simple Order Book'' is the Exchange's regular
electronic book of orders and quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(15).
    \9\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. Mini-options may only be part of a complex order that
includes other mini-options. Only those complex orders in the
classes designated by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular with no more than the applicable number of legs,
as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, are eligible for
processing. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5).
    \10\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend footnote ``*'' in Section 1)a)iii)
of the Fee Schedule to extend the waiver of the contracts cap per leg
for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July
31, 2020. Prior to a rule filing by the Exchange (described below), the
Exchange limited the cPRIME Agency Order Credit to be payable only to
the first 1,000 contracts per leg for each cPRIME Agency Order in all
tiers under the PCRP. On February 28, 2020, the Exchange filed, and the
Commission approved [sic], the Exchange's proposal to waive the 1000
contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers
under the PCRP from March 1, 2020 until May 31, 2020.\11\ The Exchange
now proposes to extend the cap waiver of 1,000 contracts per leg for
cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July 31,
2020. The purpose of this proposed change is for business and
competitive reasons and to continue to entice market participants to
submit larger-sized cPRIME Agency Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88349 (March 10,
2020), 85 FR 14995 (March 15, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \12\ There are currently 16 registered options exchanges
competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and
excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than
approximately 14% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-
listed equity and exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options trades as of
May 18, 2020, for the month of May 2020.\13\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically, as of May 18,
2020 for the month of May 2020, the Exchange had a total market share
of 5.09% of all equity options volume.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
    \13\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available at: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow (as further described below), or discontinue or
reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to
transaction and non-transaction fee changes. For example, on March 1,
2019, the Exchange filed with the Commission an immediately effective
filing to decrease certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to
the PCRP.\15\ The Exchange experienced a decrease in total market share
between the months of February and March of 2019. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the March 1, 2019 fee change may have
contributed to the decrease in the Exchange's market share and, as
such, the Exchange believes competitive forces constrain options
exchange transaction and non-transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85301 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10166 (March 19, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-09).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to extend the waiver of the cap
of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all
tiers under the PCRP until July 31, 2020 provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\ There are currently
16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange has more than approximately 14% of the market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades as of
May 18, 2020, for the month of May 2020.\19\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically, as of May 18,
2020 for the month of May 2020, the Exchange had a total market share
of 5.09% of all equity options volume.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
    \19\ See supra note 13.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to transaction and/or non-
transaction fee changes. For example, on March 1, 2019, the Exchange
filed with the Commission an immediately effective filing to decrease
certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to the PCRP.\21\ The
Exchange experienced a decrease in total market share between the
months of February and March of 2019. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the March 1, 2019 fee change may have contributed to the
decrease in the Exchange's market share and, as such, the Exchange
believes competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction and
non-transaction fees and market participants can shift order flow based
on fee changes instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to continue to waive the
1,000 contracts cap per leg for cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all
tiers in the PCRP until July 31, 2020 is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because this change is for
business and competitive reasons and available equally to all market
participants. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any
market participant would submit additional cPRIME Agency Orders in
excess of 1,000 contracts per leg in light of the proposal to continue
to waive the cap of 1,000 contracts per leg for cPRIME Agency Order
rebates for all tiers under the PCRP, but believes that market
participants would continue to be encouraged to submit larger orders to
obtain the additional credits. The Exchange believes that this proposed
change would encourage increased cPRIME Agency Order flow, which will
bring greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\22\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule changes would not impose any burden on
competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would continue to encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in
adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that other market participants at the
Exchange would be placed at a relative disadvantage by the proposed
change to continue to waive the cap of 1,000 contracts per leg for
cPRIME Agency Order rebates for all tiers under the PCRP until July 31,
2020. The proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow
to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this proposal will continue
to encourage Members to submit Priority Customer cPRIME Agency Orders,
which will increase liquidity and benefit all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act because it will continue to encourage order
flow, which provides greater volume and liquidity, benefiting all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange 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. There are currently 16
registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange has more than approximately 14% of the market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades as of
May 18, 2020, for the month of May 2020.\23\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed
equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically, as of May 18,
2020 for the month of May 2020, the Exchange had a total market share
of 5.09% of all equity options volume.\24\ In such an

environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its transaction and
non-transaction fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to
attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it continues to encourage
market participants to provide and send order flow to the Exchange. To
the extent this is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants
should benefit from the improved market quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 13.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \26\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2020-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2020-12 and should be submitted on
or before July 6, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12791 Filed 6-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48811-48814]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72816; File No. SR-ISE-2014-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change on Non-Customer Linkage and Sweep Orders

August 12, 2014.
    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 July 31, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 ISE proposes to amend its rules to introduce away market
routing for Non-Customer Orders, and to implement a new order type: the
``Sweep Order.'' The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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

1. Purpose
    Under the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
(the ``Plan''), the ISE cannot execute orders at a price that is
inferior to the best price available at other options exchanges (i.e.,
``Protected Bids'' and ``Protected Offers'').\3\ In compliance with
this requirement, marketable orders that cannot be executed at the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') or better, are instead exposed to
all Members for up to one second before, if necessary, being routed to
away markets by an unaffiliated Linkage Handler,\4\ in the case of
Public Customer Orders,\5\ or cancelled, in the case of Non-Customer
Orders.\6\ The Exchange now proposes to supplement its away market
routing capabilities by expanding this service to include Non-Customer
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 1900(o); ISE Rule 1901.
    \4\ A Linkage Handler is an unaffiliated broker dealer with
which the Exchange has contracted to provide routing services in
connection with the Plan. See Supplementary Material .03 to Rule
1901.
    \5\ A Public Customer Order is an order for the account of a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See
ISE Rules 100(a)(38)-(39).
    \6\ A Non-Customer Order is an order for the account of a person
or entity that is a broker or dealer in securities. See ISE Rules
100(a)(27)-(28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 1901, if after a
Non-Customer Order is exposed, the order cannot be executed in full on
the Exchange at the then-current NBBO or better (i) the balance of the
order will be placed on the ISE book if it is not marketable against
the then-current NBBO, or (ii) the balance of the order will be
canceled.\7\ With the proposed changes to this rule, any unexecuted
balance of a Non-Customer Order will now be eligible for away market
routing instead of being cancelled after the order is exposed. As with
Public Customer Orders today,\8\ if after a Non-Customer Order is
exposed, the order is marketable but cannot be executed in full on the
ISE at the then-current NBBO or better, the balance of the order will
be sent to the Linkage Handler for routing, up to the full displayed
size of the Protected Bids or Protected Offers that are priced better
than ISE's quote. Any balance of the order will be executed on the ISE
if it is marketable, and any additional balance that is not marketable
against the then-current NBBO will be placed on the ISE book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Supplementary Material .02(e) to Rule 1901. Both Public
Customer Orders and Non-Customer Orders that are marked ``do-not-
route'' under this section will continue to be handled in this
manner.
    \8\ See Supplementary Material .02(d) to Rule 1901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members that do not wish to have their Non-Customer Orders exposed
prior to being routed to away markets by the Linkage Handler will also
have that option. In particular, new Supplementary Material .04 to Rule
1901 provides that Members can choose to have their marketable Non-
Customer Orders sent immediately to the Linkage Handler for routing if
the automatic execution of the order would trade through another
exchange's quote. In such cases, the order will not be exposed on the
ISE and the Linkage Handler will immediately route the balance of the
order to away markets, up to the full displayed size of any better
priced Protected Bids and Protected Offers. Any balance of the order
will be executed on the ISE if it is marketable, and any additional
balance that is not marketable against the then-current NBBO will be
placed on the ISE book. If an order marked ``do-not-route'' under this
section cannot be executed in full on the ISE at the NBBO or better,
the balance of the order will be placed on the ISE book if it is not
marketable, or the balance of the order will be cancelled.
    Example:

1. ISE has 3 offers in ABC option: $1.20 for 5 contracts, $1.21 for 15
contracts, and $1.22 for 25 contracts
2. PHLX has a best offer of $1.19 for 10 contracts
3. CBOE has a best offer of $1.21 for 15 contracts
4. Amex has a best offer of $1.22 for 10 contracts

    Non-Customer Order to Buy 85 contracts with a limit price of $1.21;
Opted out of Flash Auction

1. No Flash Auction; Linkage Handler routes 10 contracts to PHLX at
$1.19
2. ISE executes 5 contracts at $1.20 and 15 contracts at $1.21
3. Linkage Handler routes 15 contracts to CBOE at $1.21
4. Remaining 40 contracts placed on the ISE book with limit price of
$1.21

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Supplementary
Material .05 to Rule 1901 which introduces a new order type intended to
facilitate routing of Public Customer and Non-Customer Orders to away
markets. A ``Sweep Order'' is a limit order that is executed against
any available interest in the ISE order book at the NBBO or better and
immediately sent to the Linkage Handler for away market routing. Sweep
orders will not be exposed to Members prior to being routed to away
markets, and will instead be handled in a manner similar to Non-
Customer Orders that have opted out of being exposed under new
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 1901, described above. In
particular, when the automatic execution of a marketable Sweep Order
would trade through another exchange's quote, the balance of the order,
up to the full displayed size of any better priced Protected Bids and
Protected Offers, will be sent to the Linkage Handler for routing, with
any additional balance being executed on the ISE if the order is
marketable. Unlike Non-Customer Orders executed pursuant to
Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 1901, however, any portion of a
Sweep Order that is not executed will be cancelled rather than placed
on the ISE book. Similarly, if the Sweep Order is not marketable when
it is submitted to the Exchange it will be cancelled on receipt. In
conjunction with the introduction of Sweep Orders the Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 805(a) to allow market makers to submit Sweep
Orders in their appointed options classes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Market makers are currently permitted to submit the
following order types in their appointed options classes: opening
only orders, immediate-or-cancel (``IOC'') orders, market orders,
fill-or-kill orders, complex orders, and certain block orders and
non-displayed penny orders. See ISE Rule 805(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example:
1. ISE has 3 offers in ABC option: $1.20 for 5 contracts, $1.21 for 15
contracts, and $1.22 for 25 contracts
2. PHLX has a best offer of $1.19 for 10 contracts
3. CBOE has a best offer of $1.21 for 15 contracts
4. Amex has a best offer of $1.22 for 10 contracts

    Sweep Order to Buy 85 contracts with a limit price of $1.21

1. No Flash Auction; Linkage Handler routes 10 contracts to PHLX at
$1.19
2. ISE executes 5 contracts at $1.20 and 15 contracts at $1.21
3. Linkage Handler routes 15 contracts to CBOE at $1.21
4. Remaining 40 contracts cancelled
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\10\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\11\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Currently, the Exchange only routes Public Customer orders to away
markets, and cancels any marketable Non-Customer orders that cannot be
executed on the ISE in compliance with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan. The proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by enabling Non-Customer Orders entered on the
ISE to access liquidity on other exchanges for the first time.
Comparable functionality is available to both Public Customer and Non-
Customer Orders on other options exchanges, including, for example,
NYSE Arca Options (``Arca'').\12\ The Exchange believes that it is in
the public interest to similarly allow ISE Members to access better-
priced liquidity on other markets regardless of whether their orders
are for the account of a Public Customer. In addition, the Exchange
notes that Non-Customer routing will be purely voluntary, and Members
that do not want their Non-Customer Orders routed to other options
exchanges, or exposed on the ISE, will be able to opt out of those
services. Giving Members the additional choice of having their Non-
Customer Orders executed against available interest on other markets
displaying better prices will improve firms' quality of execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Arca Rule 6.76A(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The introduction of Sweep Orders on the ISE also removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because this new order type will further
facilitate routing of Public Customer and Non-Customer Orders to other
options exchanges. By forgoing exposure on the ISE prior to routing and
cancelling any unexecuted balance of a Sweep Order, this new order type
is designed to allow Members to quickly access available liquidity on
the ISE and away markets. Other options exchanges also have order types
similar to the proposed Sweep Order. For example, Arca offers a ``NOW
Order'' that checks for available interest on the Arca order book
before being routed away, with any unexecuted portion of the order
being immediately cancelled.\13\ The ISE believes that its proposed
Sweep Order offering is competitive with order types already in place
on other markets, and will allow Members to receive fast executions
against interest available across all options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Arca Rule 6.62(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the ISE believes that it is in the public interest to
allow market makers to enter Sweep Orders in their appointed options
classes so that they can use this order type to access liquidity on the
ISE and other options exchanges. Under ISE Rules, Market Makers are
permitted to provide resting liquidity in their appointed classes
through the use of quotes entered in compliance with Rule 804. In order
to access liquidity provided by other firms, however, Market Makers use
IOC and other order types that do not rest on the regular order
book.\14\ Because any portion of a Sweep Order that is not executed is
cancelled, the proposed addition of Sweep Orders to the list of order
types that market makers may use in their appointed classes is
generally consistent with Rule 805(a), which was intended to prevent
market makers from having both standing limit orders and quotes in the
same options class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive
because it expands away market routing functionality that is currently
limited to Public Customer Orders. With the proposed change, both
Public Customer and Non-Customer Orders will be able to access better-
priced liquidity on other competing markets when the ISE is not at the
NBBO. Similar functionality is currently available at other options
exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra notes 12 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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)(ii) of the Act \16\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-ISE-2014-37 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-ISE-2014-37. 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2014-37 and should be submitted on
or before September 8, 2014.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19474 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 2498 October 25, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with EMA/ ARB regarding HDDE In Use Testing Program FROM: Glenn W. Passavant, Director Nonroad Center TO: Public Docket OAR 2004 0072 On August 26, 2004 , September 20, 2004, and October 14, 2004 representatives from EPA, EMA, and ARB met in Chicago and Detroit to discuss EMA's concerns about the proposed in use testing program for heavy duty diesel vehicles and engines. The positions and concerns presented by EMA largely reflected those presented in their written comments dated August 16,

2004.

Summary of Points Made In Discussions 1. Measurement Equipment Availability and Program Implementation  Conduct PM measurement technology demonstration on vehicles during pilot program  Discussion about whether PM measurement technology used during pilot program should be purchased by industry or provided on loan from EPA/ ARB  Discussed the idea of a 2006/ 2007 technology review for the PM in final regulations  EMA wants across the board review for all pollutants  EMA wants the possibility of technology/ application specific testing exemptions  Need sense of what parameters and information would be reviewed in making PM implementation determinations 2  Do not make change process too easy; options include  temporary waiver  program modification  off ramp ( if necessary) would need strong record for change  Discussed extending PM pilot one year to give time for technology proveout; no change to gaseous pollutant pilot program.

2. New Instrumentation Accuracy Allowance  For pilot program options discussed included 10% across the board covering all variables or larger of 10% or nominal ASTM round off by pollutant  EPA wants full pilot program in 2005 2006, EMA concerned too much follow on testing ( Phase 1 and 2) would occur if accuracy allowance too small  Discussion of how to have pilot program accomplish its goal without too much or too little testing  EMA every mfr must do at least one phase 2  Cummins: limit of 1/ 3 of families go to 10 tested or include a double cap if exceed by 25% then go to 10 or if exceed by 40% then all must go  Develop trigger based approach based on avg emission level  Limit total number tested per year by any manufacturer ( say 25)

 It appears more data and experience are needed to resolve the accuracy margin issue 3. Waiver of Measurement Requirement  EMA wants a measurement waiver process based on good experience and data. EPA says a temporary waiver possible, but any long term changes need to go through rulemaking. ARB would consider but hurdle would be high 4. Instrument Verification/ Certification  EPA expects that commercial vendors would go to expense of validating performance for purposes of marketing and customers. Instrument manufacturer not responsible for 3 torque reconciliation. Vendor may need to demonstrate accuracy to OEMs using EPA criteria.

 Working with CSTF, EPA has proposed guidance criteria for measurements within the NTE Zone. Expect to map " X" points ( say 25 point matrix.). Release guidance with final rule.

 ARB pre pilot program not designed to address accuracy/ measurement allowance. Need follow on effort involving engine dyno, chassis dyno, chase vehicle.

 EPA will not officially validate or verify commercially available units.

5. Identification of NTE Zone, Including Carve Outs and Approved Deficiencies ( ECM Issues)

 EPA would prefer needed information up front on an electronic medium which would allow the information to be programmed into the PEMS unit before testing thus eliminating post processing. CSTF has an example of how to address this need and will bring an example to us. We need the availability of all information ( preferably at certification) to conduct an accurate post processing assessment.

 Industry concerned that up front reporting is too burdensome, and reprogramming of current engine controls is too costly in the near term.

6. Engine Family Designation and Implementation Date  For pilot programs ( 2005& 2006) we will designate families for testing by June 1.

 EMA wants only ½ of burden ( i. e., 12 ½ % ) if first fully enforceable year  2007  EMA doesn't care when we designate in 2008  EMA concerned that fully enforceable program in 2007/ 2008 will look like pilot program since they will not be able to accommodate changes; may ask for extension of pilot program in lieu of ½ of fully enforceable program 7. Testing with Activated MILs or Trouble Codes  General discussion on excluding vehicles from testing which have an activated MIL light 4 before testing starts and how to handle if light comes on during testing  Agreement to report all MIL, codes, etc to EPA regardless of when in the entire selection or testing process they are identified  EPA needs to develop threshold mileage on when an MIL light could matter for testing.

Will be placed in guidance 8. Pre approved Test Programs Versus Guidance  EMA objected to EPA's proposed language to require manufacturers to make pretesting submittal on basics of test fleet selection and related information  not required in " program outline" and creates a burden with minimal added value  nevertheless, EPA expects most manufacturers will seek pre testing meeting with  EPA/ ARB to discuss their " plans and approaches" and will consider guidance 9. Minimum Fuel Quality Specification  EMA expressed concern about the potential for non spec fuel to adversely affect emission results. The use of diesel fuel meeting ASTM D 975 was discussed as was the idea of allowing a drain and fill with commercially procured local fuel to avoid potential fuel issues. Issues regarding biodiesel were also discussed, including how its use might affect emissions performance and how its use should be incorporated into the rule 10. Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

 EMA still owes us input on what information coming from the engine and that reported to EPA as a result of the program would be claimed as CBI In addition to these matters, the parties discussed the need for various guidance documents to help ensure a smooth rollout and implementation of the program and to clearly lay out reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In some cases these were preferred over regulatory provisions.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34518-34519]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2104-000]

Southern Partners; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Southern Partners's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 8, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables Subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15547 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P