[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80865-80867]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32524]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76715; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
21.8, Order Display and Book Processing

December 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 16, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to authorize the Exchange's equity
options platform (``EDGX Options'') to make a modification to Rule 21.8
(Order Display and Book Processing).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 is proposing to modify Rule 21.8, Order Display and
Book Processing, which sets forth the priority rules applicable to EDGX
Options as well as the Exchange's program for accepting Directed
Orders. Specifically, Rule 21.8 describes the general priority rules
for EDGX Options, including that quotes and orders are prioritized by
price and then on a pro-rata basis according to size. Rule 21.8 also
describes additional priority overlays, including special priority
provisions for Customer orders, Directed Market Makers and Primary
Market Makers. The purpose of this rule filing is to make a minor
modification to the Directed Order program, as described below.
    Pursuant to Rule 21.8(f), an Options Member may designate a Market
Maker (``Directed Market Maker'') on orders it enters into the
Exchange's system (``Directed Orders''). A Directed Market Maker
receives certain participation entitlements described in Rule 21.8
subject to certain conditions, which conditions are also set forth in
the Rule. For instance, the Directed Market Maker must be registered
with the Exchange as a Market Maker in the relevant option class at the
time of receipt of the Directed Order to be eligible to receive the
Directed Market Maker participation entitlement. One current limitation
on the Directed Market Maker priority overlay is that only Customer
Orders are eligible to be directed by an Options Member to a Directed
Market Maker. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this limitation to
align more closely with the directed order rules applicable to options
trading on the options trading platform of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX
Options'') \5\ and other options exchanges.\6\ Accordingly, as
proposed, an Options Member could direct any order to a Directed Market
Maker, not just a Customer Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BX Options, Chapter VI, Section 10(1)(C)(2)(iii), which
does not limit ``Directed Orders'' on BX Options to ``Customer''
orders. A ``Directed Order'' is defined in BX Options Chapter VI,
Section 1(e)(2) as ``an order to buy or sell which has been
directed, provided it is properly marked as such, to a particular
market maker. . . .'' A ``Customer'' is defined in BX Options
Chapter 1, Section 1(a)(22) and is equivalent to a Customer on the
Exchange.
    \6\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rules 6.1A(4) and 6.76A; NASDAQ PHLX
Rules 1014(g)(vii) and 1080(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal 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.\7\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to accept Directed
Orders on the EDGX Options platform without restricting such orders to
Customer Orders. The Exchange believes that the change is appropriate
and consistent with the Act because it recognizes that orders of other
participants, not just Customers, could potentially be directed to a
Directed Market Maker. As noted above, other options exchanges operate
with similar directed order programs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra notes 5 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to make a
modification to the Exchange's Directed Order program. As noted above,
the change would make the Exchange's rule similar to that of other
options exchanges.\10\ The Exchange believes that the proposed change
will have a positive competitive impact by allowing additional Directed
Orders to be submitted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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) of the Act \11\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\12\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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 proposal 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 No. SR-EDGX-2015-65 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 No. SR-EDGX-2015-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-EDGX-2015-65 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32524 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 11993]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1188-000]

Prairie State Solar, LLC; 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
Prairie State Solar, LLC'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 March 15, 2021.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 23, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04146 Filed 2-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14034-14035]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05391]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9907-72-OA]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of New
Jersey's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective on March 12, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR)

was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as
part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting
as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and
establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as
legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR
requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive,
or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-
authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of
those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards
for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document
receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use
to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b)
through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for
program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to
be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place
of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization
regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures
must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient
legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the
programs covered by the application and will use electronic document
receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On January 14, 2010, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) submitted an application titled ``Regulatory
Services Portal (RSP)'' for revisions/modifications of its EPA-
authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed NJDEP's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve New Jersey's request to revise/modify its following
EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR
parts 51 Subpart A, 51 Subpart I, 51 Subpart I, 70.5 and 70.6, 63.7480-
7575 and 63.11193-11237, 70.5 and 70.6, 70.6(a)(3)iii(A) & (c)5,
122.21, 142.10(a-h), 171.1 et seq., 261-270 and 273, 262.56(a), 262.42,
262.55, 264.72(b) and 265.72(b), 264.75, 270.11 and 270.42, 370, 372,
and 403.12i., is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans
    Part 63--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories
    Part 70--State Operating Permit Programs
    Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation
    Part 171--Certification of Pesticide Applicators
    Part 257--Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices
    Part 262--Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
    Part 272--Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs
    Part 370--Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know
    Part 372--Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-
Know
    Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Source of Pollution

    NJDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

     Dated: March 4, 2014.
Jeffrey Wells,
Acting Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2014-05391 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45713-45718]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16263]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89381; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 2360 (Options) To Increase Position
Limits on Options on Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

July 22, 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 July 14, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 2360 (Options) to increase the
position and exercise limits for conventional options on certain
exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'').
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

2360. Options

    (a) No Change.

(b) Requirements

    (1) through (2) No Change.

(3) Position Limits

    (A) Stock Options--
    (i) through (ii) No Change.
    (iii) Conventional Equity Options.
    a. For purposes of this paragraph (b), standardized equity option
contracts of the put class and call class on the same side of the
market overlying the same security shall not be aggregated with
conventional equity option contracts or FLEX Equity Option contracts
overlying the same security on the same side of the market.
Conventional equity option contracts of the put class and call class on
the same side of the market overlying the same security shall be
subject to a position limit of:
    1. through 5. No Change.
    6. for selected conventional options on exchange-traded funds
(``ETF''), the position limits are listed in the chart below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Security underlying option           Position limit (contracts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIAMONDS Trust (DIA)..................                       300,000
The Standard and Poor's Depositary                  [1,800,000]3,600,000
 Receipts Trust (SPY).....................
The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM)........                     1,000,000
The PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQ)...........                     1,800,000
The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF                          1,000,000
 (EEM)....................................
iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI).........            [500,000]1,000,000
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (EFA)...............            [500,000]1,000,000
iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (EWZ)......                       500,000
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF                          500,000
 (TLT)....................................
iShares MSCI Japan ETF (EWJ)..............                       500,000
iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond                          500,000
 Fund (HYG)...............................
Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLF)...                       500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. No Change.
    (B) through (D) No Change.
    (4) through (24) No Change.
    (c) No Change.

Supplementary Material

    .01 through .03 No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(A) imposes a position limit on the number of
equity options contracts in each class on the same side of the market
that can be held or written by a member, a person associated with a
member, or a customer or a group of customers acting in concert.
Position limits are intended to prevent the establishment of options
positions that can be used to manipulate or disrupt the underlying
market or might create incentives to manipulate or disrupt the
underlying market so as to benefit the options position. In addition,
position limits serve to reduce the potential for disruption of the
options market itself, especially in illiquid options classes.\4\ This
consideration has been balanced by the concern that the limits ``not be
established at levels that are so low as to discourage participation in
the options market by institutions and other investors with substantial
hedging needs or to prevent specialists and market makers from
adequately

meeting their obligations to maintain a fair and orderly market.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22,
1999), 64 FR 4911, 4912-4913 (February 1, 1999) (Order Approving
File No. SR-CBOE-98-23) (citing H.R. No. IFC-3, 96th Cong., 1st
Sess. at 189-91 (Comm. Print 1978)).
    \5\ See supra at 4913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(i) does not independently establish a position
limit for standardized equity options. Rather, the position limit
established by the rules of an options exchange for a particular equity
option is the applicable position limit for purposes of Rule 2360.\6\
Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(iii) provides that conventional equity options \7\
are subject to a basic position limit of 25,000 contracts or a higher
tier for conventional option contracts on securities that underlie
exchange-traded options qualifying for such higher tier as determined
by the rules of the options exchanges. In addition, FINRA lists
position limits for options on securities that have higher position
limits--currently, only the ETFs listed in Rule
2360(b)(3)(A)(iii)a.6.--that also generally mirror the options exchange
position limits. At this time, FINRA proposes to conform its
conventional options position limits to the Cboe Exchange, Inc.'s
(``Cboe'') recent amendments that increased the position limit options
due to an ongoing increase in demand in options on the following ETFs:
The Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts Trust (``SPY''), iShares
MSCI EAFE ETF (``EFA''), iShares China Large-Cap ETF (``FXI''), iShares
iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond Fund (``HYG''), and Financial Select
Sector SPDR Fund (``XLF'' collectively, with the aforementioned ETFs,
the ``Underlying ETFs'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., Cboe Rule 8.30; ISE Options 9 Section 13; NASDAQ
PHLX Options 9 Section 13; NYSE American Rule 904; NYSE Arca Rule
6.8-0; MIAX Rule 307; BOX Rule 3120 and IM-3120-2; NASDAQ Options 9
Section 13; BX Options 9 Section 13; and BZX Rule 18.7.
    \7\ Conventional options are over-the-counter options and are
defined in Rule 2360(a)(9) as ``(A) any option contract not issued,
or subject to issuance, by The Options Clearing Corporation; or (B)
an OCC Cleared OTC Option.''
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88768 (April 29,
2020), 85 FR 26736 (May 5, 2020) (Order Granting Approval of File
No. SR-CBOE-2020-015). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
88893 (May 18, 2020), 85 FR 31239 (May 22, 2020) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-MIAX-2020-10) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88894 (May 18, 2020), 85 FR
31267 (May 22, 2020) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of File No. SR-BOX-2020-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend the table provided in Rule
2360(b)(3)(A)(iii)a.6. as follows:
     The position limits for options on SPY would be increased
from 1,800,000 contracts to 3,600,000 contracts;
     The position limit for options on EFA would be increased
from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts; and
     The position limit for options on FXI would be increased
from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts.
    In addition, the proposed rule change would add to the table
provided in Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(iii)a.6. as follows, with the effect of
each ETF being increased from the current position limit of 250,000
contracts:
     The position limit for options on HYG would be increased
to 500,000 contracts; and
     The position limit for options on XLF would be increased
to 500,000 contracts.
    FINRA notes the proposed position limits on EFA and FXI are
consistent with existing position limits for options on the iShares
Russell 2000 ETF (``IWM'') and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
(``EEM''), and the proposed limits for options on XLF and HYG are
consistent with current position limits for options on the iShares MSCI
Brazil Capped ETF (``EWZ''), iShares 20+Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF
(``TLT''), and iShares MSCI Japan ETF (``EWJ'').
    In support of the proposed rule change, as noted by Cboe, position
limits are determined by the option exchange's rules.\9\ The ETFs that
underlie options subject to the proposed rule change are highly liquid,
and are based on a broad set of highly liquid securities and other
reference assets. The above listed ETFs are listed on various national
securities exchanges and meet their listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Cboe Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In supporting the proposed position limit increases, FINRA
considered both liquidity of the Underlying ETFs and the component
securities of the Underlying ETFs, as well as the availability of
economically equivalent products to the overlying options and their
respective position limits. For instance, some of the Underlying ETFs
are based upon broad-based indices that underlie cash-settled options,
and therefore the options on the Underlying ETFs are economically
equivalent to the options on those indices, which have no position
limits. Other Underlying ETFs are based upon broad-based indices that
underlie cash-settled options with position limits reflecting notional
values that are larger than current position limits for options on the
ETF analogues. For indexes that are tracked by an Underlying ETF but on
which there are no options listed, FINRA believes, based on the
liquidity, depth and breadth of the underlying market of the components
of the indexes, that each of the indexes referenced by the applicable
ETFs would be considered a broad-based index under options exchange
rules. Additionally, if in some cases certain position limits are
appropriate for the options overlying comparable indexes or basket of
securities that the Underlying ETFs track then those economically
equivalent position limits should be appropriate for the options
overlying the Underlying ETFs.
    FINRA notes that Cboe has compiled the following trading statistics
regarding shares of and exchange-traded options on the Underlying ETFs,
as well as the component securities or components underlying the
referenced index (as applicable): \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 8. As noted above, the position limit for
standardized options under Rule 2360 is the limit established by an
exchange on which the option trades. The position limit for
conventional options under Rule 2360 generally mirrors the options
exchange position. The proposed rule change would maintain
consistent position limits between standardized and conventional
options on the same underlying security. FINRA believes that the
Cboe reasoning regarding the increase to standardized options
position limits applies equally to increasing the position limit for
conventional options.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Shares
                                  ADV (ETF        ADV (option      outstanding     Fund market     Total market
           Product               shares) (in      contracts)       (ETFs) (in       Cap (USD)       cap of ETF
                                  millions)                         millions)       (billion)       components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPY..........................            70.3  2.8 million.....           968.7           312.9  29.3 trillion
FXI..........................            26.1  196,600.........           106.8             4.8  28.0 trillion
EFA..........................            25.1  155,900.........           928.2            64.9  19.3 trillion
HYG..........................            20.0  193,700.........           216.6            19.1  906.4 billion
XLF..........................            48.8  102,100.........           793.6            24.6  3.8 trillion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Cboe has collected the same trading statistics, where
applicable, as above regarding a sample of other ETFs, as well as the
current position limits for options on such ETFs, to draw comparisons
in support of proposed position limit increases for options on a number
of the Underlying ETFs:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Shares
                                               ADV (ETF       ADV (option     outstanding     Fund market      Total market cap of ETF        Current
                  Product                     shares) (in     contracts)      (ETFs) (in       cap (USD)             components           position limit
                                               millions)                       millions)       (billion)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QQQ.......................................            30.2         670,200           410.3            88.7  10.1 trillion...............       1,800,000
EWZ.......................................            26.7         186,500             233            11.3  234.6 billion...............         500,000
TLT.......................................             9.6          95,200           128.1            17.5  N/A.........................         500,000
EWJ.......................................             7.2           5,700           236.6            14.2  3 trillion..................         500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA agrees with Cboe that, overall, the liquidity in the shares
of the Underlying ETFs and in the component securities of the
Underlying ETFs, and in their overlying options, as well as the large
market capitalizations and structure of each of the Underlying ETFs,
support the proposal to increase the position limits for each option
class. Given the robust liquidity and capitalization in the Underlying
ETFs and in the component securities of the Underlying ETFs, FINRA
believes the market capitalization of the underlying component
securities of the applicable ETF is large enough to adequately absorb
potential price movements that may be caused by large trades. The
following analyses for the Underlying ETFs, which FINRA agrees with in
support of the proposed rule change, as well as the statistics
presented in support thereof, were presented by Cboe in their initial
filing, which was approved by the Commission.
    Specifically, Cboe notes that SPY tracks the performance of the S&P
500[supreg] Index, which is an index of diversified large cap U.S.
companies.\11\ It is composed of 505 selected stocks spanning over
approximately 24 separate industry groups. The S&P 500[supreg] is one
of the most commonly followed equity indices, and is widely considered
to be the best indicator of stock market performance as a whole. SPY is
one of the most actively traded ETFs, and, since 2017, its ADV has
increased from approximately 64.6 million shares to 70.3 million shares
by the end of 2019. Similarly, its ADV in options contracts has
increased from 2.6 million to 2.8 million through 2019. As noted, the
demand for options trading on SPY has continued to increase, however,
the position limits have remained the same, which may have impacted
growth in SPY option volume from 2017 through 2019. SPY shares are more
liquid than PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQ'') shares, which is also
currently subject to a position limit of 1,800,000 contracts.
Specifically, SPY currently experiences over twice the ADV in shares
and over four times the ADV in options than that of QQQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF Trust, available at
https://www.ssga.com/us/en/individual/etfs/funds/spdr-sp-500-etf-trust-spy (January 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EFA tracks the performance of MSCI EAFE Index, which is composed of
over 900 large and mid-cap securities across 21 developed markets,
including countries in Europe, Australia and the Far East, excluding
the U.S. and Canada.\12\ From 2017 through 2019, ADV has grown
significantly in shares of EFA and in options on EFA, from
approximately 19.4 million shares in 2017 to 25.1 million through 2019,
and from approximately 98,800 options contract in 2017 to 155,900
through 2019. Options are available on the MSCI EAFE Index (``MXEA''),
the analogue index, which was previously subject to a position limit of
25,000 contracts (50,000 as proposed by Cboe and approved the
Commission).\13\ Using the notional value comparison of EFA's share
price of $69.44 and MXEA's index level of 2036.94, approximately 29 EFA
option contracts equal one MXEA option contract.\14\ Based on the above
comparison of notional values, a position limit for EFA options that
would be economically equivalent to that of MXEA options equates to
725,000 contracts (previously) and 1,450,000 (for the Cboe proposed
50,000 contracts position limit increase for MXEA options that was
approved by the Commission). Also, MXEA index options have an ADV of
594 options contracts, in which equate to an ADV of 17,226 EFA option
contracts (as that is 29 times the size of 594). EFA options, which are
more actively traded and held than MXEA options, are currently subject
to a position limit of 500,000 options contracts despite their much
higher ADV of approximately 155,900 options contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See iShares MSCI EAFE ETF, available at https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239623/ishares-msci-eafe-etf (February
10, 2020).
    \13\ See note 8. Cboe is proposing [sic] to raise the position
limit on certain indexes. FINRA incorporates by reference the
exchange position limits on indexes in FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(B) and
accordingly does not need to propose any corresponding FINRA rule
change.
    \14\ See note 8. The values were presented by Cboe in their
initial filing, which was approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FXI tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50 Index, which is
composed of the 50 largest Chinese stocks.\15\ FXI shares and options
have also experienced increased liquidity since 2017, as ADV has grown
from approximately 15.1 million shares in 2017 to 26.1 million through
2019, as well as approximately 71,900 options contracts in 2017 to
196,600 through 2019. Although there are currently no options on the
FTSE China 50 Index listed for trading, the components of the FTSE
China 50 Index, which can be used to create a basket of stocks that
equate to the FXI ETF, currently have a market capitalization of
approximately $28 trillion and FXI has a market capitalization of $4.8
billion (as indicated above), which are both large enough to absorb
potential price movements caused by a large trade in FXI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See iShares China Large-Cap ETF, available at https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239536/ishares-china-largecap-etf
(February 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    XLF invests in a wide array of financial service firms with
diversified business lines ranging from investment management to
commercial and investment banking. It generally corresponds to the
price and yield performance of publicly traded equity securities of
companies in the SPDR Financial Select Sector Index.\16\ XLF
experiences ADV in shares and in exchange-traded options (48.8 million
shares and 102,100 options contracts) that is significantly greater
than the ADV in shares and options for EWZ (26.7 million shares and
186,500 options contracts), TLT (9.6 million shares and 95,200 options
contracts), and EWJ (7.2 million shares and 5,700 options contracts),
each of which already have a position limit of 500,000 contracts--the
proposed position limit

for XLF options. Although there are no options on the SPDR Financial
Select Sector Index listed for trading, the components of the index,
which can be used to create a basket of stocks that equate to the XLF
ETF, currently have a market capitalization of $3.8 trillion (indicated
above). Additionally, XLF has a market capitalization of $24.6 billion.
Both of these are large enough to absorb potential price movements
caused by a large trade in XLF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Select Sector SPDR ETFs, XLF, available at http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/sector/xlf (January 15, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, HYG attempts to track the investment results of Markit
iBoxx USD Liquid High Yield Index, which is composed of U.S. dollar-
denominated, high-yield corporate bonds and is one of the most widely
used high-yield bond ETFs.\17\ HYG experiences significantly higher ADV
in shares and exchange-traded options (20 million shares and 193,700
options contracts) than both TLT (9.6 million shares and 95,200 options
contracts), and EWJ (7.2 million shares and 5,700 options contracts),
which are currently subject to a position limit of 500,000 options
contracts--the proposed limit for options on HYG. While HYG does not
have an index option analogue listed for trading, FINRA agrees with
Cboe's belief that HYG's market capitalization of $19.1 billion, and of
$906.4 billion in component securities, is adequate to absorb a
potential price movement that may be caused by large trades in HYG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF,
available at https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239565/ishares-iboxx-high-yield-corporatebond-etf (January 15, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that increasing the position limits for conventional
options subject to the proposed rule change would lead to a more liquid
and competitive market for these options, which will benefit customers
interested in these products.
Creation and Redemption for ETFs
    FINRA believes that the creation and redemption process for ETFs
will lessen the potential for manipulative activity with options on the
Underlying ETFs. When an ETF provider wants to create more shares, it
looks to an Authorized Participant (generally a market maker or other
large financial institution) to acquire the securities the ETF is to
hold. For instance, when an ETF is designed to track the performance of
an index, the Authorized Participant can purchase all the constituent
securities in the exact same weight as the index, then deliver those
shares to the ETF provider. In exchange, the ETF provider gives the
Authorized Participant a block of equally valued ETF shares, on a one-
for-one fair value basis. The price is based on the net asset value,
not the market value at which the ETF is trading. The creation of new
ETF units can be conducted during an entire trading day, and is not
subject to position limits. This process works in reverse where the ETF
provider seeks to decrease the number of shares that are available to
trade. The creation and redemption process, therefore, creates a direct
link to the underlying components of the ETF, and serves to mitigate
potential price impact of the ETF shares that might otherwise result
from increased position limits for the ETF options.
    FINRA understands that the ETF creation and redemption process
seeks to keep an ETF's share price trading in line with the ETF's
underlying net asset value. Because an ETF trades like a stock, its
share price will fluctuate during the trading day, due to simple supply
and demand. If demand to buy an ETF is high, for instance, the ETF's
share price might rise above the value of its underlying securities.
When this happens, the Authorized Participant believes the ETF may now
be overpriced, so it may buy shares of the component securities and
then sell ETF shares in the open market (i.e., creations). This may
drive the ETF's share price back toward the underlying net asset value.
Likewise, if the ETF share price starts trading at a discount to the
securities it holds, the Authorized Participant can buy shares of the
ETF and redeem them for the underlying securities (i.e., redemptions).
Buying undervalued ETF shares may drive the share price of the ETF back
toward fair value. This arbitrage process helps to keep an ETF's share
price in line with the value of its underlying portfolio.
Surveillance and Reporting
    FINRA believes that the increased position limits provisions are
appropriate in light of the existing surveillance procedures and
reporting requirements at FINRA,\18\ the options exchanges, and at the
several clearing firms, which are capable of properly identifying
unusual or illegal trading activity. These procedures use daily
monitoring of market movements by automated surveillance techniques to
identify unusual activity in both options and underlying stocks.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 2360(b)(5) for the options reporting requirements.
    \19\ These procedures have been effective for the surveillance
of options trading and will continue to be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the
Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\20\ Options positions are
part of any reportable positions and cannot legally be hidden.
Moreover, the previously noted Rule 2360(b)(5) requirement that members
must file reports with FINRA for any customer that held aggregate large
long or short positions of any single class for the previous day will
continue to serve as an important part of FINRA's surveillance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by FINRA and by the Commission adequately address financial
responsibility concerns that a member or its customer will maintain an
inordinately large unhedged position in any option with a higher
position limit. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies
serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by
increasing the margin or capital that a member must maintain for a
large position. Under Rule 4210(f)(8)(A), FINRA also may impose a
higher margin requirement upon a member when FINRA determines a higher
requirement is warranted. In addition, the Commission's net capital
rule \21\ imposes a capital charge on members to the extent of any
margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change
immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\22\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change promotes
consistent regulation by harmonizing position limits with those of the
other self-regulatory organizations. FINRA further believes that
increasing the position limit on conventional options promotes
consistent regulation by harmonizing the position limit with its
standardized counterpart. In addition, FINRA believes the proposed rule
change will be beneficial to large market makers and institutions
(which generally have the greatest ability to provide liquidity and
depth in products

that may be subject to higher position limits as has been the case with
recently approved increased position limits),\23\ as well as retail
traders and public customers, by providing them with a more effective
trading and hedging vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \23\ See note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA believes that the structure of the Underlying
ETFs, the considerable market capitalization of the funds, underlying
component securities, and the liquidity of the markets for the
applicable options and underlying component securities will mitigate
concerns regarding potential manipulation of the products or disruption
of the underlying markets upon increasing the relevant position limits.
As a general principle, increases in market capitalizations, active
trading volume, and deep liquidity of securities tend to deter
manipulation or disruption. This general principle applies to the
recently observed increased levels of market capitalization, trading
volume, and liquidity in shares of the Underlying ETFs, and the
components of the Underlying ETFs (as described above). FINRA does not
believe that the options markets or underlying markets would become
susceptible to manipulation or disruption as a result of the proposed
position limit increases.
    Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such
as those proposed herein, are not novel and have been previously
approved by the Commission. For example, a position limit of 1,800,000
contracts on options on SPY has been established.\24\ Additionally, the
Commission has approved similar proposed rule changes by the options
exchanges to increase position and exercise limits for options on
highly liquid, actively traded ETFs.\25\ Furthermore, the proposed
position limits on EFA and FXI are consistent with existing position
limits for options on IWM and EEM, and the proposed limits for options
on XLF and HYG are consistent with current position limits for options
on EWZ, TLT and EWJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83349 (May 30,
2018), 83 FR 26123 (June 5, 2018) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-MIAX-2018-11). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 83412 (June 12, 2018), 83 FR 28298 (June
18, 2018) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No.
SR-PHLX-2018-44); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83414 (June
12, 2018), 83 FR 28296 (June 18, 2018) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-BOX-2018-22); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 83415 (June 12, 2018), 83 FR 28274 (June
18, 2018) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No.
SR-CBOE-2018-042); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83413 (June
12, 2018), 83 FR 28277 (June 18, 2018) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-44) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83417 (June 12, 2018), 83 FR
28279 (June 18, 2018) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-26).
    \25\ See note 6. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68086 (October 23, 2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (Order
Approving File No. SR-CBOE-2012-66); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 68478 (December 19, 2012), 77 FR 76132 (December 26, 2012)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-BOX-
2012-23); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68398 (December 11,
2012), 77 FR 74700 (December 17, 2012) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-ISE-2012-93); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68293 (November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71644
(December 3, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
File No. SR-Phlx-2012-132); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68358 (December 5, 2012), 77 FR 73708 (December 11, 2012) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-NYSE MKT-2012-71);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68359 (December 5, 2012), 77 FR
73716 (December 11, 2012) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-132) and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 69457 (April 25, 2013), 78 FR 25502 (May 1,
2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-
MIAX-2013-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed
to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior that might arise
from changing position and exercise limits.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Economic Impact Analysis
    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth
below, to analyze the potential economic impacts, including anticipated
costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects transfers
of wealth, relative to the current baseline, and the alternatives FINRA
considered in assessing how to best meet its regulatory objectives.
Regulatory Objective
    FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 2360 to harmonize FINRA's position
limits for conventional options with the position limit for
standardized options.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Baseline
    Per FINRA Rule 2360(b)(3)(A)(iii) conventional equity options are
subject to a basic position limit of 25,000 contracts or higher for
conventional option contracts on securities that underlie exchange-
traded options qualifying for a higher tier as determined by option
exchange rules. The existing position limits for conventional options
on ETFs are: 1,800,000 contracts for SPY, 500,000 contracts for EFA or
FXI and 250,000 contracts for HYG or XLF. Cboe has recently increased
position limit options on these ETFs.
Economic Impact
Benefits
    As noted above, the proposed rule change would amend Rule 2360 to
harmonize FINRA's position limits for conventional options with the
position limits for standardized options.\27\ If the existing position
limits for conventional equity options on select ETFs constrains
trading in these ETFs, then investors may be able to better manage risk
and trade on information when the position limit is relaxed. In
general, the improvement in risk management and informational
efficiency may increase more when position limits are increased. FINRA
acknowledges, however, that the conventional options on these ETFs, the
ETFs themselves, and the securities underlying these ETFs are liquid,
so improvements in informational efficiency may be relatively small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For investors that trade conventional equity options, there is
likely to be a natural size for an executed order that minimizes fixed
and variable transaction costs, including but not limited to, the bid-
ask spread, price impact, and transaction fees. If the existing
position limits for conventional equity options on select ETFs
constrains the order size such that fixed and variable transaction
costs are higher than optimal, then investors may benefit if the new
position limit is no less than the natural size. In such an event, the
cost to hedge an ETF would decline, thereby making it less costly to
manage downside risk.
    In addition, if the existing position limits serve as a constraint,
then an increase in the position limits for conventional options on
select ETFs could permit investors to more easily find a counterparty.
If the number of counterparties increases, then the cost of hedging
should decline as the half-spread narrows, thereby making it less
expensive to manage downside risk.
    The extent of the constraint imposed by the current limit on
conventional options is related to the ability of an investor to
achieve similar economic exposure through other means. If there are
other securities, such as an option on a closely related index, that
exist and provide similar economic exposure less expensively, then the
value of lessening the position limits on conventional options on ETFs
is lower.

    Members may rely on information and data feeds from the Options
Clearing Corporation to assist in their monitoring position limits.
Because position limits on the standardized and conventional side have
traditionally been consistent, members have relied on this feed for
both standardized and conventional options. If the position limits
between standardized and conventional options are conformed, then the
cost from monitoring position limits should decline for member firms.
Having the same position limits on standardized and conventional
options, reduces the potential for excess loss that may be incurred
when different limits are applied to the standardized versus
conventional options on the same ETF. The economic loss may arise from
building and maintaining trading and compliance systems to support the
different regimes. Furthermore, the harmonization of position limits on
standardized and conventional options eliminates the potential risk and
cost arising from regulatory arbitrage.
Costs
    The proposed rule change may impose limited operational cost on
member firms that trade conventional options on ETFs, as these same
firms would need to revise position limits that are used in trading
systems. However, the proposed rule change should not impose additional
costs, because it is difficult to disrupt or manipulate the underlying
market, create an incentive to disrupt or manipulate the underlying
market for the purpose of profiting from the options position, or
disrupt or manipulate the options market for conventional options on
ETFs affected by this proposed rule. ETFs that underlie options subject
to the proposed rule change are highly liquid and are based on a broad
set of highly liquid securities, which makes the market difficult to
manipulate or disrupt. In fact, options on certain broad-based security
indexes have no position limits. Furthermore, the creation and
redemption process for these ETFs reduces the potential for disruptive
or manipulative activity. New ETF units may be created at any time
during the trading day and are not subject to position limits.
Consequently, there is a direct link between the underlying components
of the ETF and the ETF, which keeps the ETF's share prices trading in
line with the ETF's underlying net asset value.
Alternatives
    No further alternatives are under consideration.

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

    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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \29\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the 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. FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay
so that FINRA may immediately harmonize position limits with those of
other self-regulatory organizations to ensure consistent regulation.
For this reason, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-FINRA-2020-021 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-FINRA-2020-021. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2020-021, and should be submitted
on or before August 19, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16263 Filed 7-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 34341-34342]
[DOCID:fr14jn06-79]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0489; FRL-8072-1]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Pendimethalin in or on Fruiting Vegetable
Group, Pome Fruit Group, Apple Pomace, Juneberry, Stone Fruit Group,
and Pomegranate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
pendimethalin in or on fruiting vegetable group, pome fruit group,
apple pomace, juneberry, stone fruit group, and pomegranate.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0489 and pesticide petition numbers (PP)
0E6175, 2E6450, 2E6464, and 2E6449, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0489. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed UNDER FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of the pesticide petitions received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of regulations in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of pendimethalin in or on fruiting vegetable group,
pome fruit group, apple pomace, juneberry, stone fruit group, and
pomegranate. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions contain
data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section
408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on
these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petitions included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of
pendimethalin residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

    PP 0E6175, 2E6450, 2E6464, and 2E6449. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390,proposes to establish tolerances for residues
of the herbicide [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine,
(pendimethalin) and its 3, 5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL
202347)] in or on the following food commodities:
    1. PP 0E6175 proposes to establish a tolerance for fruiting
vegetable group 8 at 0.1 parts per million (ppm).
    2. PP 2E6450 proposes to establish tolerances for pome fruit group
11 at 0.05 ppm; apple pomace at 0.20 ppm, and juneberry at 0.05.
    3. PP 2E6464 proposes to establish a tolerance for stone fruit
group 12 at 0.05 ppm.
    4. PP 2E6449 proposes to establish a tolerance for pomegranate at
0.05 ppm.
    Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine
that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of
the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the tolerance be
set at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated
method. In plants the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction,
column clean up, and quantitation by GC. The method has a limit of
quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol
metabolite is use to measure and evaluate the chemical residue(s).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 5, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-9198 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36527]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR12-28-000]

Enstor Grama Ridge Storage and Transportation, L.L.C.; Notice of
Filing

    Take notice that on June 11, 2012, Enstor Grama Ridge Storage and
Transportation, L.L.C. filed to revise its Statement of Operating
Conditions to correct, update, and or remove certain provisions and
other housekeeping changes as more fully described in the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2012.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14878 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20877-20878]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR19-23-000]

TransMontaigne Partners L.P., Metroplex Energy, Inc. v. Colonial
Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 1, 2019, pursuant to sections 3, 6, 13(1),
and 15(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act,\1\ Rule 206 of the Rules of
Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission),\2\ and Rules 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) of the Commission's
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings,\3\
TransMontaigne Partners L.P. and Metroplex Energy, Inc. (collectively,

Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Colonial Pipeline
Company (Colonial or Respondent) challenging the lawfulness of the rate
structure and terms and conditions of service by Colonial for
transportation of refined petroleum products, including those practices
contained in Colonial's FERC Tariff No. 99.46.0; Colonial's FERC Tariff
No. 98.37.0; and Colonial's Shipper Manual, as more fully explained in
the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. App. 3, 6, 13(1), and 15(1).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.206 (2018).
    \3\ 18 CFR 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainant certify that a copy of the complaint was served on
the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the official service list.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the website 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time May 31, 2019.

    Dated: May 3, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09709 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45607-45609]
[DOCID:fr06au08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0003; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-1]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lexington, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Lexington, OK. New
Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Muldrow Army Heliport make
this action necessary. This action will enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (JFR) aircraft

operations at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington, OK.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC September 25, 2008. Comments for
inclusion in the rules Docket must be received September 22, 2008. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this direct final rule to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0003/Airspace
Docket No. 08-ASW-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also
submit comments through the Internet at http://regulations.gov. You may
review the public docket containing the direct final rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office, telephone number 1-800-647-5527, is on the
ground floor of the building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Mallett, NISC Contractor,
Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date of
the rule. If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or
negative comment, or written comment notice of intent to submit such a
comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published
in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be
published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule 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 direct final
rule. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of
the direct final rule. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of their comments on this rule must submit with those comments
a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is
made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0003, Airspace Docket No. 08-
ASW-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be
submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES above or through the Web site. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Lexington, OK, providing the
airspace required to support the new 175[deg] Copter RNAV (GPS)
approach developed for IFR landings at Muldrow Army Heliport.
Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface is required to
encompass all SIAPs and for the safety of IFR operations at Muldrow
Army Heliport. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward
from the surface of the earth are published in the FAA Order 7400.9R,
signed August 15, 2007 and effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implication
under Executive Order 13132.
    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, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 establishes Class E airspace at Muldrow Army Heliport, Lexington,
OK.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(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 Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designation and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E2 airspace areas extending upward from the
surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E2 Lexington, OK [New]

Muldrow Army Heliport, OK
    (Lat. 35[deg]01'35'' N., long. 97[deg]13'54'' W.)
Muldrow NDB
    (Lat. 35[deg]01'44'' N., long. 97[deg]13'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,600 feet above mean sea level (MSL) within a 3.7-mile radius of
the Muldrow Army Heliport and within 3 miles each side of the
355[deg] bearing from the Muldrow NDB extending from the 3.7-mile
radius of the heliport to 6.8 miles north of the heliport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 3, 2008.
Richard H. Farrell, III,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-17560 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M