[Federal Register: February 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5829-5830]
[DOCID:fr02fe09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12628-002]

The City of Nashua, IA; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and
Establishing a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

January 26, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Original License.
    b. Project No.: 12628-002.
    c. Date filed: January 13, 2009.
    d. Applicant: The City of Nashua, Iowa.
    e. Name of Project: Cedar Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located at the existing Cedar
Lake Dam, on the Cedar River, in Chickasaw County, Iowa. The project
would not occupy any Federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Rebecca Neal, The City of Nashua, 402
Main Street, Nashua, IA 50658;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Watts<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6123.
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, State, and local
agencies and Indian tribes with jurisdiction and/or special expertise
with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the
preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to
request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form a factual basis for complete analysis of the application on its
merits, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person must file a
request for the study with the Commission no later than 60 days from
the application filing date, and serve a copy of the request on the
applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: March 16, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link. After logging into the eFiling system, select
``Comment on Filing'' from the Filing Type Selection screen and
continue with the filing process.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. Project Description: The existing dam and integral powerhouse
are owned by the City of Nashua (City) and were constructed in 1917 and
used for power generation until 1965. The City is proposing to
rehabilitate the project and install new turbine generators and
associated equipment. The proposed project would consist of: (1) An
existing 15.5-foot-high concrete dam with a 258-foot-long spillway
equipped with four 6-foot-high taintor gates, a 6-foot-high control
gate, and three 4-foot-high flashboards; (2) an existing 405-acre
reservoir with a normal full pond elevation of 960.1 feet above mean
sea level; (3) an existing 50-foot-wide concrete intake structure
connected to; (4) an existing powerhouse to contain four new turbine
generating units with a total installed capacity of 800 kilowatts; (5)
a new 75-foot-long, 13.8-kilovolts overhead transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate an
estimated average annual generation of 3,285 megawatt hours.
    The project would operate in a run-of-river mode.
    o. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the
Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the documents. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    p. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission
staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment rather than issue
a draft and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations,
prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA.
Staff intends to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the license application.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter....  April 2009.
Issue Scoping Document...................  May 2009.
Notice of application is ready for         August 2009.
 environmental analysis.
Notice of the availability of the EA.....  March 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments: Final amendments to the application must be filed
with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the
notice of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2156 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 24849]
[DOCID:fr27ap06-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-2074-002, et al.]

Alcoa Power Marketing, Inc., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate
Filings

April 20, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Alcoa Power Marketing, Inc., Alcoa Power Generating Inc.

[Docket Nos. ER02-2074-002, ER00-1372-003]

    Take notice that on April 13, 2006, Alcoa Power Marketing, Inc. and
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., tendered for filing their updated market
analysis with respect to each company's authority to make sales at
market-based rates.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 28, 2006.

2. PacifiCorp

[Docket No. ER05-554-004]

    Take notice that on April 3, 2006, PacifiCorp filed a supplemental
compliance refund report pursuant to the Commission's August 25, 2005
letter order.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 28, 2006.

3. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER06-657-001]

    Take notice that April 14, 2006 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. filed
an amendment to its February 21, 2006 filing, an executed
interconnection service agreement and an executed construction
agreement with Bethlehem Renewable Energy L.L.C. and PPL Electric
Utilities.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 5, 2006.

4. Bear Energy LP

[Docket No. ER06-864-000]

    Take notice that on April 13, 2006, Bear Energy LP tendered for
filing a Notice of Succession as a result of a corporation name change
and a revised Rate Schedule, reflecting the name change.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 28, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 14 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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6335 Filed 4-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46272]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0383]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Radioactive Drug Research Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Radioactive Drug Research
Committees'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 9, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Radioactive Drug Research
Committees'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0053. The approval
expires on July 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this
information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-18609 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65480-65482]
[DOCID:fr21no07-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0212; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-237-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SAAB Model SF340A and Model 340B
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001.
    In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4,
2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar
regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more,
which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.

    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21,
2007.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

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: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate,

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1112; 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-2007-0212;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-237-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 2007-0169, dated June 15, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001.
    In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4,
2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar
regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more,
which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
    This Airworthiness Directive, which renders mandatory the
modification [3163] to separate wiring of Fuel Quantity Indication
System [FQIS], is a consequence of the design review.

Modification 3163 includes re-routing of existing wiring to the FQIS,
installing new wires with shields to the FQIS, and operational and
functional tests of the FQIS. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed
to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory
standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that
all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport
category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against
explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-28-025, dated February 26,
2007. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 218 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 50 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,500 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for

these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,199,000, or $5,500 per product.

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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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 AD:

SAAB Aircraft AB: Docket No. FAA-2007-0212; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-237-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 21, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to SAAB Model SF340A and Model 340B
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001.
    In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4,
2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar
regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more,
which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
    This Airworthiness Directive, which renders mandatory the
modification [3163] to separate wiring of Fuel Quantity Indication
System [FQIS], is a consequence of the design review.

The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Modification 3163 includes re-routing of existing wiring to the
FQIS, installing new wires with shields to the FQIS, and operational
and functional test of the FQIS.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, do modification 3163 in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-025,
dated February 26, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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. Send information to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0169, dated
June 15, 2007, and Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-025, dated February
26, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-22729 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 17234]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14823-000]

Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Bacon Ridge Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Snyder
Township in Blair County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
upper reservoir with a surface area of 110 acres and a storage capacity
of 1,650 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,480 feet
above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new
roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir
with a surface area of 43 acres and a storage capacity of 1,980 acre-
feet at a surface elevation of 1,620 feet msl; (3) a new 4,840-foot-
long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower
reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high
powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated
capacity of 116 megawatts; (5) a new 4,824-foot-long transmission line
connecting the powerhouse to the Sandy Ridge Wind Farm 115/34.5-
kilovolt circuit; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an annual generation of 424,616 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC,
5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14823-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14823) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 4, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07089 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7149-7152]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01592]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90954; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Transaction Credits at Equity 7, Section 118

January 19, 2021.
    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 January 12, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits
at Equity 7, Section 118, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its schedule of credits at Equity 7,
Section 118, to add a new credit for executing orders in securities in
all three Tapes.
    Presently, the Exchange offers a member a credit of $0.0030 per
share of displayed orders/quotes (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders) to the extent such member has shares of
liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.30% or more of Consolidated Volume
\3\ during the month, which includes shares of liquidity provided with
respect to securities that are listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or
NYSE that represent 0.40% or more of Consolidated Volume. The purpose
of this credit is to incentivize members to add substantial liquidity
to the Exchange, and to do so to a significant extent by adding
liquidity in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' means the total consolidated volume reported
to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and
trade reporting facilities during a month in equity securities,
excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round lot.
For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the extent of a
member's trading activity the date of the annual reconstitution of
the Russell Investments Indexes is excluded from both total
Consolidated Volume and the member's trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to add a new, lower credit for members
that meet similar criteria, albeit with less stringent volume
requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide a new
credit of $0.00295 per share of displayed orders/quotes (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide liquidity
for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities
through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent
0.90% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month, which includes
shares of liquidity provided with respect to securities that are listed
on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE that represent 0.25% or more of
Consolidated Volume.
    By proposing to add this new tier, the Exchange will provide a new
means for its members to qualify for a credit for adding significant
liquidity to the Exchange in securities listed on exchanges other than
Nasdaq and NYSE. This new credit will be lower than the existing credit
for such activity, but members will also qualify for it by satisfying
less stringent criteria. By providing an additional incentive for
members to add liquidity to the Exchange in securities listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, the Exchange intends to improve
the

overall quality and attractiveness of the market.
Impact of the Changes
    Those participants that act as significant providers of liquidity
to the Exchange, and who provide significant volumes of liquidity in
securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, will benefit
directly from the proposed addition of the new credit. Other
participants will also benefit from the new credit insofar as any
increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will improve the
overall quality of the market, to the benefit of all members.
    The Exchange notes that its proposals are not otherwise targeted at
or expected to be limited in their applicability to a specific segment
of market participants nor will they apply differently to different
types of market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and further the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits is
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, 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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. Within the
foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the
Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
    The Exchange has designed its proposed new credit to provide an
additional incentive to members to increase their liquidity adding
activity on the Exchange, and in particular, their liquidity adding
activity in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE.
An increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will, in turn,
improve the quality of the Nasdaq market and increase its
attractiveness to existing and prospective participants.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the new credit are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer them lower charges or higher credits.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its credits fairly
among its market participants. It is equitable for the Exchange to
establish the proposed new credit as a means of incentivizing members
to provide meaningful amounts of liquidity to the Exchange, including
in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE. To the
extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing liquidity on the
Exchange, including liquidity adding activity in securities listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE, then the Exchange would
experience improvements in its market quality, which would benefit all
market participants.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new credit
is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more
generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposed Credit Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that its new proposed credit is not
unfairly discriminatory because it stands to improve the overall market
quality of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants, by
incentivizing members to provide meaningful amounts of liquidity,
including in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE.
    Finally, any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposed new
credit is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that
provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. To the
contrary, the proposed change will provide an opportunity for members
that do not qualify for the $0.0030 per share executed credit to
receive a lower credit based upon achieving similar, albeit lower
thresholds of liquidity adding activity. Any member may elect to
provide the levels of market activity required in order to receive the
new credit. Furthermore, all members of the Exchange will benefit from
any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates.
    Moreover, members are free to trade on other venues to the extent
they believe that the proposed credit is too low or the qualification
criteria are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any
market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes that the tier structure
is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices as well as the other
industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposal will not burden competition
because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and
subject to extensive competition both from the multitude of other live
exchanges and from off-exchange venues. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee and credit changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed new credit is reflective of this competition because,
even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume, the
Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets could
hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprises upwards of 40% of industry volume.
    The Exchange's proposal is pro-competitive in that the Exchange
intends for it to increase liquidity adding activity on the Exchange
and thereby render the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to
market participants.
    In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2021-003 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-NASDAQ-2021-003. 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-NASDAQ-2021-003 and should be submitted
on or before February 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01592 Filed 1-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 52865-52868] [FR Doc No: 2018-22683]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84417; File No. SR-MIAX-2018-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities

Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To

List and Trade Options on the SPIKESTM Index

October 12, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On June 28, 2018, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC

(``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade options on the

SPIKESTM Index (``SPIKES'' or the ``Index''), which measures

expected 30-day volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (``SPY''). The

proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register

on July 16, 2018.\3\ On August 28, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)

of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which

to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule

change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or

disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received no

comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83619 (July 11,

2018), 83 FR 32932 (``Notice'').

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83975, 83 FR 44929

(September 4, 2018). The Commission designated October 14, 2018 as

the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or

institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,

the proposed rule change.

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

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade cash-settled, European-

style options on the Index, which measures expected thirty-day

volatility of SPY.\6\

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

    \6\ According to the Exchange, SPY is historically the largest

and most actively-traded exchange-traded fund in the United States

as measured by its assets under management and the value of shares

traded. See Notice, supra note 3, at 32936.

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

    As more fully set forth in the Notice, the Index is calculated

using a methodology developed by T3i Pty Ltd, which uses published

real-time prices and bid/ask quotes of SPY options.\7\ The Index will

be calculated and maintained by the Exchange. The Index uses a

proprietary ``price dragging'' technique to determine the ongoing price

for each individual option used in the calculation of the Index

(``Reference Price''), which the Exchange believes should materially

reduce erratic movements of the Index value as quotations on out-of-

the-money options are rapidly altered during times of low liquidity.\8\

The Exchange also notes the Index's exclusion rule (``truncation

method''), which determines how far away from the money to exclude

strikes from the volatility calculation. When two consecutive option

prices of $0.05 or less are encountered when moving away from the at-

the-money strike, the truncation method excludes all the strikes beyond

that level, from each of the put and call side.\9\ The Exchange

believes that this exclusion methodology should result in a calculation

outcome that better reflects the expected measure of volatility.\10\

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

    \7\ See id. at 32933-36 (describing in more detail the

calculation methodology for the Index).

    \8\ See id. at 32934-35 (describing in more detail the ``price

dragging'' methodology).

    \9\ See id. at 32935 (describing in more detail the truncation

method).

    \10\ See id.

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

    The Index will be updated on a real-time basis on each trading day

beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at

4:15 p.m. (New York time).\11\ Values of the Index will be disseminated

to the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') at least every

fifteen seconds during the Exchange's regular trading hours, pursuant

to Exchange Rules 1802 and 1803.\12\ In the event the Index ceases to

be maintained or calculated, or its values are not disseminated at

least every fifteen seconds by a widely available source, the Exchange

will not list any additional series for trading and may, for the

purpose of maintaining a fair and orderly market and protecting

investors, limit transactions in certain options on the Index to

closing transactions only.

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

    \11\ If the current published value of a component is not

available, the last published value will be used in the calculation.

    \12\ The Exchange notes that it is currently disseminating the

cash values of the Index to OPRA under the ticker symbol ``SPIKE''

in at least fifteen second intervals. See Notice, supra note 3, at

32936.

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

    The Exchange proposes that the standard trading hours for index

options (9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., New York time) will apply to options

on the Index. Options on the Index will expire on the Wednesday that is

thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately

following the expiration month.\13\ The exercise-settlement amount will

be equal to the difference between the final settlement value of the

Index and the exercise price of the option, multiplied by $100.

Exercise will result in the delivery of cash on the business day

following expiration.

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

    \13\ If that Wednesday or the Friday that is thirty days

following that Wednesday is an Exchange holiday, the final

settlement value will be calculated on the business day immediately

preceding that Wednesday.

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

    To determine the final settlement value of the Index, the Exchange

will perform an Index settlement price calculation, which includes all

SPY options that expire thirty days after the SPIKES settlement that

are included in the settlement (``constituent options''). To perform

the Index settlement price calculation, each constituent option will be

assigned a Settlement Reference Price (``SRP''). Each SRP will be

determined through the proposed ``SPIKES Special Settlement Auction,''

which will be conducted once per month, in the constituent options

traded on the Exchange, on final settlement day. The SPIKES Special

Settlement Auction will utilize the Exchange's existing standard

opening process, as described in Exchange Rule 503(f), with a proposed

modification to account for situations where there remains an order

imbalance \14\ that must be filled at the opening price after the

requisite number of iterations of the imbalance process takes place

under the Exchange's existing opening process.\15\

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

    \14\ An ``imbalance'' occurs when there is insufficient

liquidity to satisfy all trading interest due an execution at a

certain price. See Exchange Rule 503(f)(2)(v).

    \15\ The proposed modification to the Exchange's existing

opening process to facilitate the execution of this remaining must-

fill interest is referred to as the special settlement imbalance

process (``SSIP''). See proposed Rule 1809, Interpretation and

Policy .06. For more detail about the operation of the SPIKES

Special Settlement Auction, including an example, see Notice, supra

note 3, at 32939-41.

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

    All orders for participation in the SPIKES Special Settlement

Auction that are related to positions in, or a trading strategy

involving, Index options (``SPIKES Strategy Orders'') and any change to

or cancellation of any such order: (i) Must be received prior to the

applicable SPIKES Strategy Order cut-off time for the constituent

option series, as determined by the Exchange, which may be no earlier

than the opening of the live order window (currently, 7:30 a.m.) or the

live quote window (for the SPIKES Special Settlement Auction,

anticipated to be 8:30 a.m.), and no later than the opening of trading

in the series; and (ii) may not be cancelled or modified after the

applicable SPIKES Strategy Order cut-off time, unless the SPIKES

Strategy Order is not executed in the SPIKES Special Settlement Auction

and the cancellation or modification is submitted after the SPIKES

Special Settlement Auction is concluded. The Exchange states that it

will generally consider orders to be SPIKES Strategy Orders if the

orders possess the following characteristics: (i) They are for options

with the expiration that will be used to calculate the exercise or

final settlement value of the applicable volatility index option

contract; (ii) they are for options spanning the full range of strike

prices for the appropriate expiration for options that will be used to

calculate the exercise or final settlement value of the applicable

volatility index option contract, but not necessarily every available

strike price; and (iii) they are for put options with strike prices

less than the at-the-money strike price, for call options with strike

prices greater than the at-the-money strike price, or for put and call

options with at-the-money strike prices. The Exchange notes that it may

also deem order types other than those provided above as SPIKES

Strategy Orders if the Exchange determines that to be the case based on

the applicable facts and circumstances.\16\

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

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 32939.

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

    The Exchange believes that the Index, including the settlement

value, will not be readily susceptible to manipulation.\17\ According

to the Exchange, the ``price dragging'' technique, which is used to

determine the ongoing Reference Price for each individual option used

in the calculation of the Index, helps prevent market manipulation by

utilizing the most recent trade price as the Reference Price, which the

Exchange believes to be a more accurate methodology than

alternatives.\18\ Further, the Exchange believes that using SPY options

as the components for a volatility index has the potential to result in

an extremely liquid volatility product with exceptionally tight

spreads, which consequently would not be readily susceptible to

fraudulent and manipulative acts.\19\ For example, the Exchange notes

that SPY options regularly trade four to five million contracts a day

and have twenty to thirty million contracts in open interest, and are

traded on all fifteen option exchanges.\20\ Since SPY options are

traded on all fifteen option exchanges, the Exchange believes that

market participants may take advantage of arbitrage opportunities

across multiple venues.\21\

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

    \17\ See id. at 32942-43.

    \18\ See id. at 32942.

    \19\ See id. at 32943.

    \20\ See id.

    \21\ See id.

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt minimum trading increments for

options on the Index to be $0.05 for series trading below $3, and $0.10

for series trading at or above $3. The Exchange also proposes to set

the minimum strike price interval for options on the Index at $0.50

where the strike price is less than $15, $1 or greater where the strike

price is between $15 and $200, and $5 or greater where the strike price

is greater than $200. Currently, when new series of options on the

Index with a new expiration date are opened for trading, or when

additional series of options on the Index in an existing expiration

date are opened for trading as the current value of the Index moves

substantially from the exercise prices of series already opened, the

exercise prices of such new or additional series must be reasonably

related to the current value of the Index at the time such series are

first opened for trading.\22\ The Exchange, however, proposes to

eliminate this range limitation that would otherwise limit the number

of $1 strikes that may be listed in options on the Index. The

Exchange's proposal to eliminate this range limitation is identical to

strike price intervals adopted by the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'')

for the Cboe Volatility Index (``VIX'').\23\

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

    \22\ See Exchange Rule 1809(c)(3). The term ``reasonably related

to the current index value of the underlying index'' means that the

exercise price is within thirty percent of the current index value,

as defined in Exchange Rule 1809(c)(4).

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63155 (October 21,

2010), 75 FR 66402 (October 28, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-096).

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

    The Exchange initially proposes to list options on the Index in up

to twelve standard monthly expirations. In addition, long-term option

series having up to sixty months to expiration,\24\ Short Term Option

Series,\25\ and Quarterly Options Series \26\ may also be traded.

Options on the Index will be quoted and traded in U.S. dollars.\27\

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

    \24\ See Exchange Rule 1809(b)(1).

    \25\ See Exchange Rule 1809, Interpretations and Policies .01.

    \26\ See Exchange Rule 1809, Interpretations and Policies .02.

    \27\ See Exchange Rule 1809(a)(1).

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

    The Exchange believes that the Index is a broad-based index, as

that term is defined in Exchange Rule 1801(k).\28\ The Exchange

proposes that the Index should be treated as a broad-based index for

purposes of position limits, exercise limits, and margin requirements.

Accordingly, the Exchange proposes no position or exercise limits for

options on the Index \29\ and the Exchange proposes to apply margin

requirements that are identical to those applied for other broad-based

index options.

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

    \28\ Exchange Rule 1801(k) defines the terms ``market index''

and ``broad-based index'' to mean an index designed to be

representative of a stock market as a whole or of a range of

companies in unrelated industries.

    \29\ As noted above, the Index will settle using published

prices and quotes from its corresponding SPY options. The Exchange

asserts that because the size of SPY options market (as well as the

underlying SPY market) is so large, the Exchange believes that there

is minimal risk of manipulation by virtue of position size in SPIKES

options. The Exchange notes that options on Cboe's VIX are also not

subject to any position or exercise limits. See Notice, supra note

3, at 32941. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54019

(June 20, 2006), 71 FR 36569 (June 27, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-55).

Additionally, the Exchange notes there are currently a number of

actively-traded broad-based index options, e.g., DJX, NDX, SPX, that

are also not subject to any position or exercise limits. See Notice,

supra note 3, at 32941 n.56.

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

    In addition, the Exchange proposes that the trading of options on

the Index will be subject to the same rules governing the trading of

Exchange index options, including sales practice rules, margin

requirements, and trading rules. Trading of options on the Index will

also be subject to the trading halt procedures applicable to other

index options traded on the Exchange.\30\ Further, Chapter XIII of the

Exchange's rules, which is designed to protect public customer trading,

will apply to trading in options on the Index.

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

    \30\ See Exchange Rule 1808(c).

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

    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance

program in place for options on the Index and intends to apply those

same program procedures that it applies to the Exchange's other options

products. In addition, the Exchange notes that several new

surveillances related to the Index will be added to its surveillance

program.\31\ Specifically, the Exchange notes that it has a Regulatory

Services Agreement (``RSA'') in place with the Financial Industry

Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') to conduct cross-market surveillances

on its behalf and has expanded the RSA to include a new options pattern

designed to determine whether any market participants influenced the

settlement price of an a.m. cash-settled index product to benefit their

expiring index option position. Further, the Exchange represents that

both MIAX Options Regulation and FINRA Options Regulation will manually

review options activity during each monthly settlement process. After

manually reviewing settlement process activity over the course of

months, the Exchange and FINRA will determine whether additional

reports or enhancements to the cash-settled report(s) are required.\32\

Additionally, the Exchange notes that it is a member of the Intermarket

Surveillance Group, through which it can coordinate surveillance and

investigative information sharing in the stock and options markets with

all U.S. registered stock and options markets. The Exchange also

represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support

additional quotations and messages that will result from the listing

and trading of options on the Index.

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

    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 32942.

    \32\ See id.

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

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration of the proposal, the Commission finds

that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of

the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a

national securities exchange,\33\ and, in particular, the requirements

of Section 6 of the Act.\34\ Specifically, the Commission finds that

the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\35\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a

national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable

principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism

of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,

to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the

Commission believes that the proposed Index options provide investors

with an additional trading and hedging mechanism.

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

    \33\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has

considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,

and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal is consistent

with the Act.\36\ As noted above, the Index is calculated using

published real-time price and bid/ask quotes of SPY options and

measures changes in the expected thirty-day volatility of SPY. The

Commission notes that SPY options are the most actively-traded options

in terms of average daily volume. After careful consideration, the

Commission has determined that the Exchange's proposal to list and

trade options on the Index, including the proposed settlement process,

is comparable to the listing and trading of options on similar

volatility indexes.\37\

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

    \36\ In approving this proposed rule change to list and trade

options on the Index, the Commission is not determining whether the

Index is a ``narrow-based'' security index as that term is defined

in the Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(B).

    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49563 (April 14,

2004), 69 FR 21589 (April 21, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2003-40) (order

approving the listing and trading of options on the VIX). See also

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71365 (January 22, 2014), 79 FR

4512 (January 28, 2014) (SR-ISE-2013-42) (order approving the

listing and trading of options on the Nations VolDex Index).

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

    The Commission also believes that permitting $0.50 strike price

intervals if the strike price is less than $15 and $1.00 strike price

intervals if the strike price is between $15 and $200 will provide

investors with added flexibility in the trading of these options and

will further the public interest by allowing investors to establish

positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives.

As noted above, the Exchange proposes to provide an exception for the

proposed Index options from the existing requirement that exercise

prices of new or additional series must be reasonably related to the

current value of the Index at the time such series are first opened for

trading.\38\ The Commission believes that this change is consistent

with the Act because it should provide investors added flexibility to

meet their investment objectives.\39\ The

Commission also notes that the Exchange has represented that it has the

necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated

with the listing and trading of this new product and it expects that

the Exchange considered this expansion of the permissible range of

strike prices in making such a representation.\40\

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

    \38\ See supra notes 22-23 and accompanying text.

    \39\ The Commission notes that Cboe previously eliminated the

band that limited the number of $1 strikes that could be listed on

VIX options. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63155 (October

21, 2010), 75 FR 66402 (October 28, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-096).

    \40\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 32942.

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

    The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act to

apply margin requirements to the proposed Index options that are

otherwise applicable to options on broad-based indexes. The Commission

further believes that the Exchange's proposed minimum trading

increment, series openings, and other aspects of the proposed rule

change are appropriate and consistent with the Act.

    As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is required, under

Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\41\ to enforce compliance by its members

and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Act,

Commission rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules. The

Exchange has asserted its belief that there is a low potential for

manipulation of the Index settlement value.\42\ The Exchange has

represented that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for

options traded on the Index, and will monitor for any potential

manipulation of the Index settlement value according to its current

surveillance procedures and additional surveillance measures.\43\ The

Commission also notes the Exchange's representation that it has the

necessary systems capacity to support the new options series that will

result from this proposal.\44\

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

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).

    \42\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 32942-43.

    \43\ See supra notes 31-32 and accompanying text.

    \44\ See id.

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the

Act,\45\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2018-14) be, and hereby

is, approved.

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

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,

pursuant to delegated authority.\46\

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

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Eduardo A. Aleman,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-22683 Filed 10-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P