[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6256-6258]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71420; File No. SR-BX-2014-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Inbound
Routing of Options Orders

January 28, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 15, 2014, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 permit the Exchange to receive inbound
orders in options routed through Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC
(``NES'') from affiliated exchanges, as described in detail below.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the filing is to permit the receipt of inbound
orders routed from affiliated exchanges in options through NES. The
Exchange filed a proposed rule change to use NES rather than Nasdaq
Options Services LLC (``NOS'') for the outbound routing of options
orders and the Exchange also updated its equities and options rules to
reflect the use of a third party unaffiliated routing broker.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-BX-2014-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to continue to receive orders from its
affiliated exchanges. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to receive
options orders, through NES directly from the options market of NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') \4\ as well as from The NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''),\5\ under the same terms and conditions as NOS currently
does. NASDAQ and PHLX have filed to use NES for outbound routing,\6\ as
well as to receive options orders routed from PHLX through NES.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012),
77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See SR-NASDAQ-2014-007 and SR-Phlx-2014-004.
    \7\ See SR-NASDAQ-2014-008 and SR-Phlx-2014-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOS and NES are broker-dealers and members of The NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), PHLX and BX. Currently, NOS provides all
options routing functions for BX Options, PHLX, and NOM. BX, NASDAQ,
NOM, PHLX, NES and NOS are affiliates.\8\ Accordingly, the affiliate
relationship between BX and NOS, its member, raises the issue of an
exchange's affiliation with a member of such exchange. Specifically, in
connection with prior filings, the Commission has expressed concern
that the affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises the
potential for unfair

competitive advantage and potential conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests.\9\
Similarly, under this proposal, the affiliate relationship between BX
and NES raises this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58324 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 46936 (August 12, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-
23; SR-BSE-2008-25; SR-BSECC-2008-01) (order approving NASDAQ OMX's
acquisition of BX); and 58179 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23,
2008) (order approving NASDAQ OMX's acquisition of PHLX).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59153 (December 23,
2008), 73 FR 80485 (December 31, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-098); and
62736 (August 17, 2010), 75 FR 51861 (August 23, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-100). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58135 (July
10, 2008), 73 FR 40898 (July 16, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-
061)(Permitting NOS to be affiliated with PHLX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has previously expressed concern
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a
member firm is affiliated with an exchange of which it is a member, the
Exchange previously proposed, and the Commission approved, limitations
and conditions on NOS's affiliation with the Exchange.\10\ Also
recognizing that the Commission has expressed concern regarding the
potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a member firm is
affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing orders, the Exchange
previously proposed, and the Commission approved,\11\ NOS's affiliation
with the Exchange to permit the Exchange to accept inbound orders that
NOS routes in its capacity as a facility of PHLX and NOM, subject to
certain limitations and conditions. The Exchange now proposes to permit
BX to accept inbound options orders that NES (rather than NOS) routes
in its capacity as a facility of PHLX and NOM, subject to the same
limitations that currently apply to BX accepting inbound orders from
PHLX and NOM through NOS, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June 26, 2012),
77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, the Exchange and FINRA maintain a Regulatory
Contract, as well as an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act
(``17d-2 Agreement'').\12\ Pursuant to the Regulatory Contract and the
17d-2 Agreement, FINRA will be allocated regulatory responsibilities to
review NES's compliance with certain Exchange rules.\13\ Pursuant to
the Regulatory Contract, however, BX retains ultimate responsibility
for enforcing its rules with respect to NES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \13\ NES is also subject to independent oversight by FINRA, its
designated examining authority, for compliance with financial
responsibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, FINRA will monitor NES for compliance with the
Exchange's trading rules, and will collect and maintain certain related
information.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to the Regulatory Contract, both FINRA and the
Exchange will collect and maintain all alerts, complaints,
investigations and enforcement actions in which NES (in its capacity
as a facility of PHLX and NOM routing orders to BX) is identified as
a participant that has potentially violated applicable Commission or
Exchange rules. The Exchange and FINRA will retain these records in
an easily accessible manner in order to facilitate any potential
review conducted by the Commission's Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, FINRA will provide a report to the Exchange's chief
regulatory officer (``CRO''), on a quarterly basis, that: (i)
Quantifies all alerts (of which FINRA is aware) that identify NES as a
participant that has potentially violated Commission or Exchange rules,
and (ii) lists all investigations that identify NES as a participant
that has potentially violated Commission or Exchange rules.
     Fourth, the Exchange has in place BX 2140(c) which
requires The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., as the holding company owning both
the Exchange and NES, to establish and maintain procedures and internal
controls reasonably designed to ensure that NES does not develop or
implement changes to its system, based on non-public information
obtained regarding planned changes to the Exchange's systems as a
result of its affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is
available generally to similarly situated Exchange members, in
connection with the provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange.
    By meeting the above conditions, the Exchange will have set up
mechanisms that protect the independence of the Exchange's regulatory
responsibility with respect to NES, as well as demonstrate that NES
cannot use any information advantage it may have because of its
affiliation with the Exchange.
    For several weeks, the Exchange has been working with the Financial
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') and The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') to secure the necessary approvals for NES to perform these
functions. The Exchange has now secured those approvals. The Exchange
seeks to complete this process and implement this proposal in January
or February.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, because the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to
continue to receive inbound orders from an affiliate (NES rather than
NOS), acting in its capacity as a facility of PHLX and NOM, in a manner
consistent with prior approvals and established protections. The
Exchange believes that these conditions establish mechanisms that
protect the independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibility
with respect to NES, as well as ensure that NES cannot use any
information it may have because of its affiliation with the Exchange to
its advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(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. Receiving orders through NES
rather than NOS does not raise any issues of intra-market competition
because it involves inbound routing from an affiliated exchange. Nor
does it result in a burden on competition among exchanges, because
there are many competing options exchanges that provide routing
services, including through an affiliate.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \17\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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-BX-2014-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-004. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-004 and should be
submitted on or before February 24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02136 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79759-79760]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0278]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

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

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 22, 2011. The exemptions
expire on December 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On October 25, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from eighteen individuals and requested
comments from the public (76 FR 66120). The public comment period
closed on November 25, 2011, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the eighteen applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible.
    The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal Register notice in
conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), Federal Register
notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These eighteen applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 33
years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years.
In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has
demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her
diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management,
and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other
disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications.
Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the October 25, 2011, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comment

    FMCSA did not receive any comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

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

from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to
achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

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

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eighteen exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts, Lennie D. Cook (OH), David R. Cornelius (IL), John R.
Crowder (OR), Scott E. Edwards (PA), Marcus M. Gagne (ME), Ronald J.
Ezell (MO), David P. Govero (MS), Dale R. Herren (MS), Tony C. Johnson
(AR), Christopher A. Jones (WY), Imre Kasza (PA), Donald R. McClure,
Jr. (PA), Jeffrey C. Minehart (PA), Helen M. O'Malley (NJ), Nathan J.
Postema (ID), Clyde G. Rishel (PA), Kurt Schneider (VT) and Douglas O.
Sundby (MN) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject
to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: December 14, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32717 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64987-64993]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0913; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00971-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-05-03, which applies to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-
2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2015-05-03 requires
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations, and incorporating structural repairs and modifications to
preclude widespread fatigue damage (WFD). Since the FAA issued AD 2015-
05-03, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary, as well as the corresponding
structural repairs and modifications to preclude WFD. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations and would require incorporating structural repairs and
modifications to preclude WFD. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact MHI RJ
Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1
Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free
phone: +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial phone: +1-514-855-8500; fax: +1-
514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://mhirj.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0913; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed

under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0913;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00971-T'' at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2015-05-03, Amendment 39-18113 (80 FR 13758,
March 17, 2015) (``AD 2015-05-03''), for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2015-
05-03 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations, and incorporating structural repairs and
modifications to preclude WFD. AD 2015-05-03 resulted from reports of
cracking on the skin panels and skin splice joints and angles at
certain stringers at various locations between certain fuselage
stations. The FAA issued AD 2015-05-03 to address WFD, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2015-05-03 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2015-05-03, the FAA has determined that new
or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary, as well as
the corresponding structural repairs and modifications to preclude WFD.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2014-07R1, dated July
13, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0913.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary, as well as the
corresponding structural repairs and modifications to preclude WFD. The
manufacturer discovered inconsistencies between the Engineering
Structure Reports and Maintenance Tasks for the inspection of fuselage
skin longitudinal splices along a certain stringer. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address WFD, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ Aviation has issued Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2280,
dated June 12, 2020. This service information, among other actions,
describes airworthiness limitation (AWL) task 53-41-207, which
specifies airworthiness limitations and inspections for fuselage and
longitudinal skin splices at stringer (STR) 6 and 20.
    This proposed AD would also require the following service
information, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for
incorporation by reference as of April 21, 2015 (80 FR 13758, March 17,
2015).
     AWL Task 53-41-110, Longitudinal Str. 6 splice butt strap
at Str. 6, FS409.0 to FS617.0, of Appendix B, Airworthiness
Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, Revision 9, dated
June 10, 2013, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements
Manual, CSP A-053.
     AWL Task 53-41-204, Frame splice angles at STR 6 and 20,
of Appendix B, Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness
Requirements, Revision 9, dated June 10, 2013, of the Bombardier CL-
600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2015-05-
03. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations and would require incorporating
structural repairs and modifications to preclude WFD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(n)(1) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 431 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from

AD 2015-05-03 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator.
In the past, the agency has estimated that this action takes 1 work-
hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total
cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).
    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the repairs and modifications specified in
this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-05-03, Amendment 39-18113
(80 FR 13758, March 17, 2015); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier,
Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2020-0913; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00971-
T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 30, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-05-03, Amendment 39-18113 (80 FR 13758,
March 17, 2015) (``AD 2015-05-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 and
subsequent.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary, as well as the
corresponding structural repairs and modifications to preclude
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The FAA is issuing this AD to
address WFD, which could adversely affect the structural integrity
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program, With
Certain Requirements Removed

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2015-05-03, with certain requirements removed. Within 60 days after
April 21, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-05-03): Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
the airworthiness limitations (AWL) tasks specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the
tasks start from the applicable threshold times specified in Part 2
Airworthiness Requirements, Revision 9, dated June 10, 2013, of
Appendix B, Airworthiness Limitations, of Bombardier CL-600-2B19,
Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053; except that, for
airplanes that have accumulated more than 38,000 total flight cycles
as of April 21, 2015, the initial compliance time for the AWL tasks
is before the accumulation of 2,000 flight cycles after April 21,
2015.
    (1) AWL Task 53-41-110, Longitudinal Str. 6 splice butt strap at
Str. 6, FS409.0 to FS617.0, of Appendix B, Airworthiness
Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, Revision 9,
dated June 10, 2013, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19, Maintenance
Requirements Manual, CSP A-053.
    (2) AWL Task 53-41-204, Frame splice angles at STR 6 and 20, of
Appendix B, Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness
Requirements, Revision 9, dated June 10, 2013, of the Bombardier CL-
600-2B19, Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP A-053.

(h) Retained No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2015-05-03, with no changes. After the maintenance or inspection
program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(i) Retained Repairs and Modifications, With Changed Paragraph
References

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2015-05-03, with changed paragraph references. Before the
accumulation of 60,000 total flight cycles: Install repairs and
modifications to preclude widespread fatigue damage (WFD) at
locations specified in the tasks identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this AD, using a method approved by the Manager, New York
ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI
RJ Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in AWL task 53-41-207, as
specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2280, dated June 12,
2020. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is at the time
specified in AWL task 53-41-207, as

specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2280, dated June 12,
2020, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(k) New No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspections
required by the service information specified in paragraph (j) of
this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date
of this AD using the Bombardier Repair Engineering Orders (REOs)
specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (l) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC20.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC20.002

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(m) New Repairs and Modifications

    Before the accumulation of 60,000 total flight cycles: Install
repairs and modifications to preclude WFD at locations specified in
the tasks identified in paragraph (j) of this AD, using a method
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or MHI
RJ Aviation ULC 's TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-05-03, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or MHI RJ Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2014-07R1, dated July 13, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0913.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free phone: +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial phone: +1-514-855-8500;
fax: +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness

Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on October 7, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22665 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27667-27669]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12450]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86065; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules Relating to Registration of Trading Permit Holders

June 7, 2019.
    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 June 6, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its rules relating to registration of Trading Permit Holders.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 certain rules relating to the
registration of its Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'').
Qualifications of TPHs
    The Exchange first proposes to amend its rules that set forth the
qualifications required to be an individual TPH or TPH organization.
Particularly, Rule 3.2(b) currently provides, among other things, that
an individual must be approved to engage in one or more of the
following enumerated trading functions: (i) Market-Maker, (ii) Floor
Broker, (iii) Proprietary Trading Permit Holder, (iv) DPM Designee, (v)
FLEX Appointed Market-Maker and (vi) FLEX Qualified Market-Maker.
Similarly, Rule 3.3(b) provides, in relevant part that a TPH
organization must be approved to engage in one or more of the following
trading functions: (i) TPH organization approved to transact business
with the public, (ii) Clearing Trading Permit Holder, (iii) order
service firm, (iv) Market-Maker; (v) Lead Market-Maker, (vi) Designated
Primary Market-Maker, and (vii) Proprietary Trading Permit Holder.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate subparagraph (b) of Rules 3.2
and 3.3. The Exchange does not believe it is necessary to enumerate in
the manner that it has the trading functions for which a TPH may be
approved to engage in, nor is it required to do so. Indeed, the
Exchange notes that other Exchanges with similar rules governing member
qualifications do not include such a list, including its affiliate
Exchanges.\5\ The Exchange believes eliminating the enumerated
categories from its rules provides the Exchange more flexibility in the
future should additional registration capacities be added or removed.
In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to
eliminate cross references to Rules 3.2(b) and 3.3(b).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rules of Cboe C2, Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. and Cboe
EDGX Exchange, Inc. See also e.g., Nasdaq PHLX LLC Rule 910 and
Nasdaq PHLX Rulebook generally. See also, NYSE Arca LLC Rules 2.2,
2.3 and NYSE Arca Rulebook generally.
    \6\ The Exchange notes that Rule 3.10 references Rule 3.3(c)
instead of Rule 3.3(b). The Exchange notes it inadvertently failed
to update the reference and that indeed, subparagraph (c) of Rule
3.3 no longer exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TPH Orientation and Qualification Examination
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rule governing the Exchange's
Trading Permit Holder Orientation Program and Trading Permit Holder
Qualification Exam. Rule 3.9(e) currently provides that any person
applying pursuant to paragraph (a) of Rule 3.9 to have an authorized
trading function \7\ is required to complete the Exchange's Trading
Permit Holder Orientation Program (``TPH Orientation'') and to pass an
Exchange Trading Permit Holder Qualification Exam (``TPH Exam''). The
Exchange proposes to eliminate in its entirety the requirement to
complete the TPH Orientation and take the TPH Exam. Particularly, the
Exchange believes that the qualification requirements under Exchange
Rule 3.6A adequately test TPH applicants' knowledge of the securities
industry. For example, all representative-level applicants are now
required to take the Securities Industry Essentials Examination
(``SIE'') which assesses basic product knowledge; the structure and
function of the securities industry markets, regulatory agencies and
their functions; and regulated and prohibited practices in addition to
passing the appropriate qualification examination (e.g., Series 57).
Additionally, the Exchange notes that all TPHs are subject to
continuing education requirements under Rule 9.3A, which, among other
things, requires each TPH and TPH organization to maintain a continuing
and current education program for its covered registered persons to
enhance their securities knowledge, skills and professionalism. As
such, the Exchange believes requiring such individuals to also attend a
TPH Orientation and take a TPH Exam in order to participate on the
Exchange is unnecessary and duplicative. The Exchange therefore seeks
to eliminate these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Currently, Floor Brokers, Market-Makers (which includes DPM
Designees, FLEX Appointed Market-Makers and FLEX Qualified Market-
Makers), and Proprietary Traders applying pursuant to Rule 3.9 are
subject to the TPH Orientation and TPH Exam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of

an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
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.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,\10\ which authorizes
exchanges to prescribe standards of training, experience and competence
for persons associated with exchange members, and gives exchanges the
authority to bar a natural person from becoming a member or a person
associated with a member, if the person does not meet the standards of
training, experience and competence prescribed in the rules of the
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes eliminating from its rules a
list of trading functions individual TPHs and TPH organizations may be
approved to engage in is not a substantive change as it does not affect
any rights or obligations of TPHs. Rather, the Exchange merely no
longer wishes to maintain Rules 3.2(b) and 3.3(b) and notes it is not
required to do so. As noted above, several other Exchanges similarly do
not maintain any provisions similar to current Rules 3.2(b) and 3.3(b),
including its affiliate Exchanges. Accordingly, the proposed rule
change will also provide further harmonization across its affiliated
exchanges with respect to its registration rules, which may alleviate
potential confusion.
    Next, the Exchange notes that under Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act,
the Exchange is authorized to prescribe standards of training,
experience and competence for persons associated with exchange members.
The Exchange believes the standards of training, experience and
competence it has prescribed under its rules, not including the TPH
Orientation and Exam are, on their own, an adequate prescription of
training, experience and competence. Indeed, the Exchange believes the
requirements related to training, experience and competence currently
set forth under rules 3.6A, along with continuing education
requirements set forth under Rule 9.3A, are designed to help ensure
professionalism among market participants, prevent fraudulent and
manipulative practices, and promote just and equitable principles of
trade. Moreover, the Exchange believes the prescribed qualification
exams required under Rule 3.6A align with the various trading functions
and associated tasks that would be performed by a TPH applicant
currently subject to the TPH Exam and tests knowledge of the most
current laws, rules, regulations and skills relevant to the respective
functions and associated tasks. The Exchange therefore believes that
any TPH applicant that can satisfy such requirements has demonstrated
that he or she has attained a sufficient level of competence and
knowledge to participate on the Exchange. In sum, the Exchange has
determined that the requisite knowledge necessary to participate on the
Exchange can be assessed adequately by the qualification examinations
prescribed under Rule 3.6A and that a TPH Orientation and Exam
requirement provides no material improvements to the qualification
process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes requiring such individuals
to also complete the TPH Orientation and take the TPH Exam is redundant
and unnecessary. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is in the
interests of all market participants to provide consistent
qualification and registration requirements across markets and notes
that its affiliated markets do not have any exchange-specific testing
requirements. The Exchange lastly notes that there is no requirement to
develop or maintain an exchange-developed test for member applicants.

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. Particularly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes
apply to all TPH applicants. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed change only affects those applying for
membership to Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed change
makes Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become Cboe Options market participants. Lastly, the Exchange notes
that it believes the proposed changes will reduce the regulatory burden
placed on market participants engaged in trading activities by
eliminating a redundant and unnecessary exam. Indeed, the proposed rule
change will provide further harmonization of registration requirements
across various markets, including its affiliates, which will reduce
burdens on competition by removing impediments to participation in the
national market system and promoting competition among participants
across the multiple national securities exchanges.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\
of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2019-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-029. 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-CBOE-2019-029 and should be submitted on
or before July 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12450 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64980-64983]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65548; File No. SR-ISE-2011-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders

October 13, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE''), 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 amend ISE Rule 722, ``Complex
Orders.'' The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2011.\3\ The Commission received one
comment letter regarding the proposed rule change and \4\ ISE submitted
a response to the comment letter.\5\ 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. 64853 (July 11,
2011), 76 FR 41850 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Geva Patz, Principal, Android Alpha Fund, dated July 27, 2011
(``Android Letter'').
    \5\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General Counsel, ISE, dated
October 12, 2011 (``ISE Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The ISE proposes to amend ISE Rule 722 to: (1) Allow market makers
to enter quotations for complex order strategies on the complex order
book, provide that such quotations will not execute automatically
against bids and offers for the individual legs of the order, and make
existing market maker risk management tools available for these
quotations; (2) add a size pro rata method of execution priority for
bids and offers on the complex order book at the same price; and (3)
provide for an enhanced allocation of complex orders to a market maker
that an Electronic Access Member (``EAM'') designates as a ``Preferred
Market Maker'' and that satisfies certain requirements.

A. Quotations for Complex Orders

    Currently, ISE market makers may enter quotes for single-leg
options orders, but not for complex order strategies.\6\ New
Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Rule 722 allows market makers to
enter quotes for complex order strategies on the complex order book in
their appointed options classes and provides that these quotes will not
execute automatically against bids and offers for the individual legs
of the order.\7\ Market makers will continue to have the ability to
enter complex orders on the complex order book. ISE represents that it
is not aware of any demand from non-market maker

participants to quote on the complex order book.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Only market makers may enter quotes. See ISE Rule 804(a)
(stating that a quotation only may be entered by a market maker, and
only in the options classes to which the market maker is appointed
under ISE Rule 802). See also ISE Rule 100(a)(42) (defining
``quote'' or ``quotation'' as a bid or offer entered by a market
maker that updates the market maker's previous bid or offer, if
any).
    \7\ Quotes and orders are processed as they are received by the
ISE's trading system. Quotes are not processed more quickly than
orders. See Notice at footnote 5.
    \8\ See Notice, 76 FR at 41852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Rule 722 provides that
complex order quotes may not be marked for price improvement,\9\ nor
are market makers required to enter quotes for complex orders.
Quotations and executions against complex orders shall not be taken
into consideration in determining whether a market maker is meeting,
respectively, its quoting obligations under ISE Rule 804 or its
obligation under ISE Rule 805 to refrain from executing more than a
specified percentage of contracts in options classes which it is not
appointed.\10\ Under new Supplementary Material .04 to ISE Rule 722,
the same risk management tools that currently are available for market
maker quotes in the individual leg market will also be available for
market makers' complex order quotes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In contrast, under ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii), complex orders
may be marked for price improvement and exposed for up to one second
before executing automatically against pre-existing complex orders
or bids and offers for the individual legs.
    \10\ Telephone conversation among Kathy Simmons, Deputy General
Counsel, ISE, and David Hsu, Assistant Director, Division of Trading
and Markets (``Division''), Commission, and Yvonne Fraticelli,
Special Counsel, Division, Commission, on October 12, 2011. A
Primary Market Maker must, on a daily basis, enter continuous
quotations and enter into any resulting transactions in all of the
series listed on ISE of the options classes to which the market
maker is appointed. A Competitive Market Maker must, on a given day,
participate in the opening rotation and make markets and enter into
any resulting transactions on a continuous basis in at least 60% of
the series listed on ISE of at least 60% of the options classes for
the Group to which the Competitive Market Maker is appointed or 40
options classes in the Group, whichever is lesser. See ISE Rule
804(e)(1) and (2). The total number of contracts executed during a
quarter by a Competitive Market Maker in options classes in which it
is not appointed may not exceed 25% of the total number of contracts
traded by such Competitive Market Maker in classes to which it is
appointed and with respect to which it was quoting pursuant to ISE
Rule 804(e)(2). The total number of contracts executed during a
quarter by a Primary Market Maker in options classes to which it is
not appointed may not exceed 10% of the total number of contracts
traded per each Primary Market Maker Membership. See ISE Rule
805(b)(2) and (3).
    \11\ ISE Rule 804, Supplementary Material .01 sets forth certain
enhanced risk management tools that currently are available for
market maker quotes in the individual leg market. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63117 (October 15, 2010), 75 FR 65042
(October 21, 2010) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
File No. SR-ISE-2010-101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Size Pro Rata Execution Priority

    Currently, ISE may designate on a class basis whether complex
orders at the same price on the complex order book will execute (A) in
time priority; or (B) on a size pro-rata basis after all Priority
Customer Orders at the same price have been executed in full.\12\ As
amended, ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i) adds a third method of execution
priority that will allow ISE to designate on a class basis that bids
and offers on the complex order book at the same price may be executed
pro-rata based on size. Under this priority method, Priority Customer
Orders would receive a pro-rata allocation along with all other orders
and quotes at the same price.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i).
    \13\ ISE notes that the new execution priority provision does
not affect ISE Rule 722(b)(2), which, among other things, provides
requirements for executing complex orders when the established bid
or offer on ISE for any leg of the complex order consists of a
Priority Customer Order. See Notice, 76 FR at 41851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Enhanced Allocation for Complex Orders

    New Supplementary Material .05 to ISE Rule 722 provides an enhanced
allocation for a market maker quoting at the best price that is
designated by the entering EAM as a Preferred Market Maker. The
enhanced allocation will be available only for options classes that are
allocated pro-rata based on size with Priority Customer Order priority,
and a Preferred Market Maker that satisfies the requirements of
Supplementary Material .05 will receive an enhanced allocation only
after all Priority Customer Orders on the complex order book at the
same price have been executed in full.\14\ A Preferred Market Maker on
the complex order book must satisfy its quoting obligations in the
options class in the regular leg market, including the enhanced quoting
requirements in ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(ii) applicable to Competitive Market
Makers that receive Preferenced Orders.\15\ Accordingly, a market maker
must be quoting at least 90% of the series of an options class in the
regular market to receive an enhanced allocation on the complex order
book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .05.
    \15\ See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .05. Among other
things, ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(ii) requires a Competitive Market Maker
to maintain continuous quotations in at least 90% of the series of
any options class in which it receives Preferenced Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After all Priority Customer Orders on the complex order book at the
same price have been executed in full, a Preferred Market Maker that
satisfies the requirements in ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .05
will receive an allocation equal to the greater of: (i) The proportion
of the total size at the best price represented by the size of the
market maker's quote; or (ii) 60% of the contracts to be allocated if
there is only one other Professional Order or market maker quotation at
the best price, and 40% of the contracts to be allocated if there are
two or more other Professional Orders and/or market maker quotes at the
best price.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\17\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that allowing market makers to enter
quotations for complex order strategies, as well as complex orders, in
the complex order book is consistent with the Act. Allowing market
markers to submit complex order quotes could result in additional
liquidity for complex orders on ISE, thereby potentially benefitting
investors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ISE Rule 722, Supplementary Material .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the limitation on automatic
executions of market maker complex order strategy quotations against
leg market interest is consistent with the Act. According to the ISE,
this limitation is designed to address an operational issue that ISE
believes could discourage market makers from adding liquidity to the
complex order book. This operational issue may arise when a market
maker updating its complex order strategy quotation inadvertently
trades with its own leg market quotations or the leg market quotations
of another market maker before the complex order strategy quotation
update is processed. By addressing an operational issue that might
discourage market makers from adding liquidity to the complex order
book, the Commission believes that the limitation on automatic
executions against leg market interest could help to increase liquidity
in the complex order

book, thus benefitting investors seeking to execute complex orders.
    The Commission believes that the market maker risk management tools
in new Supplementary Material .04 to ISE Rule 722 could assist ISE
market makers in effectively managing their complex order strategy
quotations. Accordingly, the Commission believes that Supplementary
Material .04 to ISE Rule 722 is consistent with the Act.
    The proposal also amends ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i) to provide for
executions of complex orders at the same price on a size pro-rata
basis.\20\ The Commission believes that providing an additional method
of execution priority in ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i) will provide ISE with
greater flexibility in determining how complex order bids and offers at
the same price may be executed. The Commission notes that the rules of
other options exchanges currently permit size pro-rata executions of
orders at the same price.\21\ In addition, the Commission notes that
the addition of this new execution priority method to ISE Rule
722(b)(3)(i) does not affect the complex order priority provisions in
ISE Rule 722(b)(2).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(i)(C).
    \21\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.45B(a)(i) and C2 Rule 6.12(a)(2). In
approving CBOE direct, a screen-based trading system, the Commission
stated that both price-time priority and pro rata priority were
consistent with the Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
47628 (April 3, 2003), 68 FR 17697 (April 10, 2003) (order approving
File No. SR-CBOE-00-55).
    \22\ See Notice, 76 FR at 41851. ISE Rule 722(b)(2) provides
that a complex order may be executed at a total net debit or credit
price with one other Member without giving priority to bids or
offers established in the marketplace that are no better than the
bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that
if any of the bids or offers in the marketplace consists of a
Priority Customer Order, the price of at least one leg of the
complex order must trade at a price that is better than the
corresponding bid or offer in the marketplace by at least one
minimum trading increment, as defined in ISE Rule 710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that new Supplementary Material .05 to ISE
Rule 722, which permits preferencing of certain complex orders to a
market maker with a quote at the best price on the complex order book
that the EAM entering the order designates as a ``Preferred Market
Maker,'' is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') currently permits
preferencing of complex orders \23\ and that the requirements for
receiving an enhanced complex order allocation under ISE Rule 722,
Supplementary Material .05, are the same as the requirements for
receiving an enhanced complex order allocation under CBOE Rule 8.13,
Commentary .01. Although the ISE and CBOE rules provide different
complex order percentage allocations for Preferred Market Makers, the
complex order percentage allocation in ISE Rule 722, Supplementary
Material .05 is the same as the enhanced allocation for single options
currently provided to Preferred Market Makers under ISE Rule 713,
Supplementary Material .03(c), which the Commission previously
approved.\24\ The Commission also notes ISE's statement that it would
be a violation of ISE Rule 400, ``Just and Equitable Principles of
Trade,'' for EAMs and Preferred Market Makers to coordinate their
action, and ISE's representation that it will proactively conduct
surveillance for, and enforce against, such violations.\25\ For
example, it would be a violation of ISE Rule 400 for an EAM to notify a
Preferred Market Maker immediately prior to sending a complex order so
that the market maker could post a complex order strategy quotation on
the complex order book before the EAM's order arrived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See CBOE Rule 8.13, Interpretation and Policy .01. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60957 (November 6, 2009), 74 FR
58332 (November 12, 2009) (File No. SR-CBOE-2009-070) (approving
proposal to establish a participation entitlement for complex
orders).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51818 (June 10,
2005), 70 FR 35146 (June 16, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-ISE-
2005-18). Under CBOE's rules, the complex order participation
entitlement for a Preferred Market Maker, after equivalent net
priced orders in the EBook and equivalent public customer orders
resting in the complex order book have been satisfied, is 40% when
there are two or more market makers quoting at the best net priced
bid/offer execution price, and 50% when there is only one other
market maker quoting at the best net priced bid/offer execution
price. See CBOE Rule 8.13, Interpretation and Policy .01(b). Under
ISE Rules 713, Supplementary Material .03(c) and 722, Supplementary
Material .05, a Preferred Market Maker has a participation right
equal to: (i) the proportion of the total size at the best price
represented by the size of its quote; or (ii) 60% of the contracts
to be allocated if there is only one other Professional Order or
market maker quotation at the best price and 40% if there are two or
more other Professional Orders and/or market maker quotes at the
best price.
    \25\ See Notice at footnote 10. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51818 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35146 (June 16, 2005)
(order approving File No. SR-ISE-2005-18) at footnote 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposed
rule change.\26\ ISE responded to the commenter letter.\27\ The
commenter expresses concern that ISE lacks the system capacity to
handle the additional volume that market maker complex order quotes
could produce.\28\ In particular, the commenter notes that ISE's
systems incur overhead to create a new instrument whenever a complex
order is created for a new spread, regardless of whether any trades
occur in that spread.\29\ According to the commenter, ISE had indicated
that this overhead could become problematic even at the level of a few
tens of thousands of spreads.\30\ Noting that there are over 24,000,000
valid two-legged spreads alone for options currently traded on ISE, the
commenter believed that ISE's system would be unable to keep up with
the volume of quotations even if ISE market makers chose to quote only
a small fraction of these spreads.\31\ Accordingly, the commenter
believes that the proposal ``presents a serious risk of causing an
unacceptable degradation of exchange infrastructure to the detriment of
all users, both current and potential, of the ISE Complex Order Book,''
and urged the Commission not approve the proposal ``unless and until
the ISE is able to provide adequate assurances that its systems will
not be adversely affected by the change.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Android Letter, supra note 4.
    \27\ See ISE Letter, supra note 5.
    \28\ See Android Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
    \29\ See Android Letter, supra note 4, at 1.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ Android Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to the commenter's concerns regarding the number of
complex order strategies that potentially could trade on ISE, ISE
states that the Exchange currently supports 3,000 complex order
instruments per options class, for a total of more than 7.2 million
instruments on a daily basis.\33\ ISE states, further, that far fewer
than 3,000 complex order instruments have ever traded across all
options class on ISE on a single day.\34\ Accordingly, ISE believes
that it has more than sufficient capacity to meet investor demand.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See ISE Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concern regarding the potential
increase in quotation volume, ISE states that it maintains a rigorous
capacity planning program that monitors system performance and
projected capacity demands, and that, as a general matter, ISE
considers the potential system capacity impact of all new
initiatives.\36\ ISE represents that it has analyzed the potential for
additional message traffic resulting from market makers entering quotes
on the complex order book and has concluded that, while quotes may
update more frequently than orders, it has sufficient system capacity
to handle those quotes without degrading the performance of its systems
or reducing the number of complex order instruments it currently
supports.\37\ In addition, ISE states that because market

makers are able to update multiple instruments with a single quote
change, encouraging market makers to add liquidity to the complex order
book through quotations, rather than orders, will require less ISE
capacity.\38\ For example, ISE notes that ISE market makers currently
must enter two separate orders to update a bid and an offer for each
complex order instrument.\39\ However, market makers will be able to
update both the bid and the offer for multiple complex order
instruments with one quote change.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See ISE Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2.
    \38\ See ISE Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has relied on
ISE's representation that it has the necessary systems capacity to
implement the proposed changes. The Commission expects ISE to continue
to monitor the quoting volume associated with market makers' complex
order strategy quotations and its effect on ISE's systems.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\41\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2011-39) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26990 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P