[Federal Register: December 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 67991-67992]
[DOCID:fr03de07-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56845; File No. SR-OCC-2007-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Descriptions of OCC's Assignment Procedures

November 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 9, 2007, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared
primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder,\3\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would update the descriptions of OCC's
assignment procedures to reflect the expanded use of sub-accounts at
OCC.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC currently maintains two separate procedures for assigning
exercise notices to clearing members. One is the standard assignment
procedure, which is commonly referred to as ``random'' assignment and
is applied to most options classes.\5\ The other is the pro rata
procedure which is applied to options on the S&P 500 Index as well as
all flexibly structured foreign currency and cross-rate foreign
currency options.\6\ The purpose of this filing is to modify the
descriptions of both procedures to account for the expanded use of sub-
accounts as described in File No. SR-OCC-2007-11. Specifically, the
modified descriptions reflect that OCC will assign exercise notices
directly to short positions held in a sub-account established by a
clearing member for a single beneficial owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46735 (October 28,
2002), 67 FR 67434 (November 5, 2002) (File No. SR-OCC-2002-19).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48908 (December 11,
2003), 68 FR 74689 (December 24, 2003) (File No. SR-OCC-2003-05) and
38165 (January 14, 1997), 62 FR 3070 (January 21, 1997) (File No.
SR-OCC-96-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
because it promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and fosters cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions by updating the descriptions of OCC's assignment
procedures. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the
existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be
amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been 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)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \8\ promulgated
thereunder because the proposal effects a change in an existing service
of OCC that (A) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is
responsible and (B) does not significantly affect the respective rights
or obligations of OCC or persons using the service. At any time within
sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
could summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action was necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2007-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. 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-OCC-2007-14
and should be submitted on or before December 21, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23319 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9841]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER16-64-001.
    Applicants: Tallbear Seville LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160219-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-778-001.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: MATL Amendment of Pending Tariff
Filing to be effective 3/26/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160219-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-970-000.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MATL Concurrrence to be
effective 3/26/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160219-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04145 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47195-47196]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-1-000.
    Applicants: Friendswood Energy Genco, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2292-001.
    Applicants: Southampton Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Tariff to be effective
10/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-22-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PPL submits revisions to
OATT, Attachment H-8G re: Depreciation Rate to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-23-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-04_SA 3012 Wisconsin
Power & Light-ATC 1st Revised GIA (J390) to be effective 9/20/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-24-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Westar Energy Formula Rate
Revisions to be effective 3/14/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-25-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company Formula Rate Revisions to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21839 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21796-21797]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-22727;
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0340;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
40 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective May 7, 2011. Comments must be
received on or before May 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411;
FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2006-25246;
FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054, using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time 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. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the 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.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 40 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 40 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Rex A. Botsford
Curtis F. Caddy, III.
William D. Cardiff
Roger C. Carson
Dan B. Clark
Gregory L. Cooper
Kenneth D. Craig
Terry J. Dare
Christopher A. Deadman
Vincent C. Durazzo, Jr.
Jerald O. Edwards
Breck L. Falcon
Kenneth Flack, Jr.
Maylin E. Frickey
David R. Gross
Vincent E. Hardin
Larry M. Hawkins

Francisco J. Jimenez
Christopher J. Kane
Kenneth C. Keil
Paul R. Kerpsie
Melvin A. Kleman
Michael Lafferty
Roosevelt Lawson
Eugene R. Lydick
Emanuel N. Malone
Roberto E. Martinez
Travis W. Neiwert
Barbara C. Pennington
Luis H. Sanchez
George K. Sizemore
James A. Smith
Clarence L. Swann, Jr.
David R. Thomas
Michael G. Trueblood
Donald A. Uplinger, II.
Kerry W. VanStory
Manuel A.Vargas
Steven M. Vujicic
Joseph Watkins

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (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.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 40 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR
10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR 64806;
70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 7543; 70 FR
71884; 71 FR 4632; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 18726;
72 FR 180; 72 FR 184; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR
52419; 72 FR 18726; 72 FR 9397; 73 FR 6246; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 15584;
74 FR 15586; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 11991; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR
6211; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 8842). Each of these 40 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 18, 2011.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 40 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: April 7, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-9321 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95206-95210]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79614; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3317
(Compliance With Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot)

December 20, 2016.
    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 December 13, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by 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 Rule 3317 (Compliance with
Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot) relating to the
handling to certain Order Types in Test Group Three Pilot Securities in
connection with the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot
Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'').\3\ Relatedly, the Exchange also
proposes to delete Commentary .14, which addresses the current handling
of those Order Types. Finally, Phlx proposes to add language to Rule
3317(d)(1) to clarify the treatment of orders in a Test Group Three
Security entered through the RASH or FIX protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 7, 2016, the Exchange filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change
(``Proposal'') to adopt paragraph (d) and Commentary .12 to Exchange
Rule 3317 to describe changes to system functionality necessary to
implement the Plan. The Exchange also proposed amendments to Rule
3317(a) and (c) to clarify how the Trade-at exception may be satisfied.
The SEC published the Proposal in the Federal Register for notice and

comment on September 20, 2016.\4\ Phlx subsequently filed three Partial
Amendments to clarify aspects of the Proposal. The Commission approved
the Proposal, as amended, on October 7, 2016.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78835 (September 14,
2016), 81 FR 64552 (September 20, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-92).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79074 (October 7,
2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-Phlx-2016-92, Phlx had initially proposed a re-pricing
functionality for Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three Pilot Securities.\6\ Phlx subsequently determined that it
would not offer this re-pricing functionality for Price to Comply
Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered through the
OUCH and FLITE protocols in Group Three Pilot Securities. As part of
Partial Amendment No. 2 to SR-Phlx-2016-92, Phlx proposed to delete the
relevant language from Rule 3317 related to this re-pricing
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As originally proposed, Rule 3317(d)(2) stated that Price to
Comply Orders in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price. Rule 3317(d)(3) stated that, if market
conditions allow, a Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group Three Pilot
Security will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to
the NBBO up (down) to the Order's limit price. Rule 3317(d)(4)
stated that, if market conditions allow, the Post-Only Order in a
Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted repeatedly in
accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Phlx
Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only Order is able
to be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that amendment, Phlx noted that this change would only impact
the treatment of Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only orders that are submitted through the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three Pilot Securities, as these types of
Orders that are currently submitted to Phlx through the RASH or FIX
protocols are already subject to this re-pricing functionality and will
remain subject to this functionality under the Pilot.
    In the Amendment, Phlx further noted that its systems are currently
programmed so that Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three Pilot Securities may be adjusted repeatedly to reflect
changes to the NBBO and/or the best price on the Phlx book. Phlx stated
that it was re-programming its systems to remove this functionality for
Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and Post-Only Orders
entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test Group Three Pilot
Securities. In the Amendment, Phlx stated that it anticipated that this
re-programming shall be completed no later than November 30, 2016. If
it appeared that this functionality would remain operational by October
17, 2016, Phlx indicated that it would file a proposed rule change with
the SEC and will provide notice to market participants sufficiently in
advance of that date to provide effective notice. The rule change and
the notice to market participants would describe the current operation
of the Phlx systems in this regard, and the timing related to the re-
programming.
    On October 17, 2016, Phlx filed a proposal to extend the date by
which it would complete the re-programing of its systems to eliminate
the re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three Pilot Securities for
Price to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders,
and Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols.\7\ In that proposal, Phlx stated that it anticipated that
this re-programming shall be complete on or before October 31, 2016.\8\
As Phlx continued to re-program its systems to eliminate the re-pricing
functionality in Test Group Three Pilot Securities for Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only
Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols, it
extended the date by which the re-programming shall be complete to the
current date of December 12, 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79156 (October 25,
2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-106).
     Subsequent to the approval of SR-Phlx-2016-92, Phlx become
aware that this re-pricing functionality also applies to Price to
Display Orders that are entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols
in Test Group Three Securities, and amended Commentary .14 to
indicate that Price to Display Orders will be treated in the same
manner as Price to Comply Orders under the re-pricing functionality.
Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 79261 (November 8,
2016), 81 FR 80134 (November 15, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-110) (extending
current re-pricing functionality to November 14, 2016); 79407
(November 28, 2016), 81 FR 87089 (December 2, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-
114) (extending current re-pricing functionality to December 12,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx has now completed re-programming its systems to eliminate the
re-pricing functionality in Test Group Three Pilot Securities for Price
to Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols.
However, as a result of removing the re-pricing functionality, there
are instances, due to the different functionality of the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in comparison to the other applicable Phlx protocols, where
the behavior of certain Order Types entered through the OUCH and FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three Pilot Securities will differ from the
behavior of those Order Types as set forth in Rule 3317; specifically,
the behavior of Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-
Only Orders entered through the OUCH and FLITE protocols when the Order
locks or crosses a Protected Quotation. Phlx is therefore amending Rule
3317 to clarify these differences. Although the changes made to Price
to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered
through OUCH and FLITE reflect the different functionality of the OUCH
and FLITE protocols in comparison with the other Phlx protocols, the
proposed changes treat Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders and
Post-Only Orders entered through OUCH and FLITE protocols in Test Group
Three Securities as consistently as possible with such orders entered
through OUCH and FLITE in Control Group Securities, and Test Group One
and Test Group Two Securities. These changes will adjust Price to
Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered
through OUCH and FLITE when the Order has been ranked at a midpoint of
the NBBO that then becomes impermissible due to changes in the NBBO.
Price To Comply Orders
    Currently, Rule 3317(d)(2) states that a Price to Comply Order in a
Test Group Pilot Security will operate as described in Rule 3301A(b)(1)
except as provided under this paragraph. If a Price to Comply Order for
a Test Group Three Pilot Security is partially executed upon entry and
the remainder would lock a Protected Quotation of another market
center, the unexecuted portion of the Order will be cancelled. If the
Order is not executable against any previously posted orders on the
Exchange Book, and the limit price of a buy (sell) Price to Comply
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security would lock or cross a
Protected Quotation of another market center, the Order will display at
one minimum price increment below (above) the Protected Quotation, and
the Order will be ranked on the Exchange Book at the current midpoint
of NBBO.
    Phlx proposes to augment this provision to clarify the behavior of
Price to Comply Orders entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in
Test Group Three Pilot Securities that lock or cross a Protected
Quotation. Specifically, a

Price to Comply Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security entered
through OUCH or FLITE may be adjusted in the following manner after
initial entry and posting to the Phlx Book.
    If entered at a price that locked a Protected Quotation, and if the
NBBO changes such that its price will no longer lock a Protected
Quotation, the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted to rank and
display at its original entered limit price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Phlx notes that a Price to Comply Order will always be
adjusted in this scenario, regardless of its port setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If entered at a price that crossed a Protected Quotation, and if
the NBBO changes such that it can be ranked at the price of the
Protected Quotation it crossed, the Price to Comply Order, based on the
participant's choice, may either be (i) cancelled or (ii) adjusted to
rank at the price of the Protected Quotation it crossed upon entry with
its displayed price remaining unchanged.
    If, after being posted on the Phlx Book, the non-displayed price of
a Price to Comply Order becomes locked or crossed by a Protected
Quotation due to a change in the NBBO, or if the Price to Comply Order
is at an impermissible price under Regulation NMS or the Plan and it
cannot otherwise be adjusted as above, the Price to Comply Order will
be cancelled.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, if the National Best Bid is $10.00 and the
National Best Offer is $10.10, and a Price to Comply Order to buy at
$10.15 is entered, the Price to Comply Order will be displayed at
$10.05 and ranked at $10.075. If the National Best Offer then
changes to $10.15, the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted to
rank at $10.10, and will remain displayed at $10.05. If the National
Best Offer subsequently changes to $10.10, the Price to Comply Order
will be cancelled.
    Phlx notes that a Price to Comply Order, Non-Displayed Order, or
Post-Only Order entered through OUCH or FLITE in either a Control
Group Security, a Test Group One Pilot Security or a Test Group Two
Pilot Security would only cancel if the resting order is crossed
(not locked) by a Protected Quotation due to a change in the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Displayed Orders
    Currently, Rule 3317(d)(3) states that a Non-Displayed Order in a
Test Group Pilot Security will operate as described in Rule 3301A(b)(3)
except as provided under this paragraph. A resting Non-Displayed Order
in a Test Group Three Pilot security cannot execute at the price of a
Protected Quotation of another market center unless the incoming Order
otherwise qualifies for an exception to the Trade-at prohibition
provided under Rule 3317(c)(3)(D). If the limit price of a buy (sell)
Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security would lock or
cross a Protected Quotation of another market center, the Order will be
ranked on the Exchange Book at either one minimum price increment below
(above) the National Best Offer (National Best Bid) or at the midpoint
of the NBBO, whichever is higher (lower). For a Non-Displayed Order in
a Test Group Three Pilot Security entered through RASH or FIX, if after
being posted to the Exchange Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-
Displayed Order would no longer be executable at its posted price due
to the requirements of Regulation NMS or the Plan, the Non-Displayed
Order will be repriced to a price that is at either one minimum price
increment below (above) the National Best Offer (National Best Bid) or
at the midpoint of the NBBO, whichever is higher (lower) and will
receive a new timestamp. For a Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group
Three Pilot Security entered through OUCH or FLITE, if after such a
Non-Displayed Order is posted to the Exchange Book, the NBBO changes so
that the Non-Displayed Order would no longer be executable at its
posted price due to the requirements of Regulation NMS or the Plan, the
Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled back to the Participant.
    Phlx proposes to amend this provision to clarify the behavior of
Non-Displayed Orders entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in
Test Group Three Pilot Securities that lock or cross a Protected
Quotation. Specifically, a Non-Displayed Order in a Test Group Three
Pilot Security entered through OUCH or FLITE may be adjusted in the
following manner after initial entry and posting to the Phlx Book.
    If entered at a price that locked a Protected Quotation, and if the
NBBO changes such that its price would no longer lock a Protected
Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be adjusted to rank at its
original entered limit price.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Phlx notes that a Non-Displayed Order will always be
adjusted in this scenario, regardless of its port setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If entered at a price that crossed a Protected Quotation, and if
the NBBO changes such that it can be ranked at the price of the
Protected Quotation it crossed, the Order, based on the Participant's
choice, may either be (i) cancelled or (ii) adjusted to rank at the
price of the Protected Quotation it crossed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, if the National Best Bid is $10.00 and the
National Best Offer is $10.10, and a Non-Displayed Order to buy at
$10.15 is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be ranked at $10.05.
If the National Best Offer then changes to $10.15, the Non-Displayed
Order may either be adjusted to rank at $10.10, or may be cancelled
back to the Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If entered at a price that locked or crossed a Protected Quotation,
and if the NBBO changes such that it cannot be ranked at the price of
the Protected Quotation it locked or crossed but can be ranked closer
to its original limit price, the Non-Displayed Order will be adjusted
to the new midpoint of the NBBO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, if the National Best Bid is $10.00 and the
National Best Offer is $10.10, and a Non-Displayed Order to buy at
$10.10 is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be ranked at $10.05.
If the National Best Bid then changes to $10.05, the price of the
Non-Displayed Order will be adjusted to $10.075.
    Phlx notes that a Non-Displayed Order entered through OUCH or
FLITE in either a Control Group Security, a Test Group One Pilot
Security or a Test Group Two Pilot Security would be ranked at the
locking price upon entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, after being posted on the Phlx Book, the Non-Displayed Order
becomes locked or crossed by a Protected Quotation due to a change in
the NBBO, or if the Non-Displayed Order is at an impermissible price
under Regulation NMS or the Plan and it cannot otherwise be adjusted as
above, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, if the National Best Bid is $10.00 and the
National Best Offer is $10.10, and a Non-Displayed Order to buy at
$10.10 is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be ranked at $10.05.
If the National Best Offer then changes to $10.05, the Non-Displayed
Order will be cancelled back to the Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-Only Orders
    Currently, Rule 3317(d)(4) states that a Post-Only Order in a Test
Group Pilot Security will operate as described in Rule 3301A(b)(4)
except as provided under this paragraph. For orders that are not
attributable, if the limit price of a buy (sell) Post-Only Order in a
Test Group Three Pilot Security would lock or cross a Protected
Quotation of another market center, the Order will display at one
minimum price increment below (above) the Protected Quotation, and the
Order will be ranked on the Exchange Book at the current midpoint of
the NBBO.
    Phlx proposes to augment this provision to clarify the behavior of
Post-Only Orders entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three Pilot Securities that lock or cross a Protected Quotation.
Specifically, a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order in a Test Group Three
Pilot Security entered through OUCH or FLITE may be adjusted in the
following manner after initial entry and posting to the Phlx Book.
    If entered at a price that locked a Protected Quotation, and if the
NBBO changes such that its price will no longer lock a Protected
Quotation, the Post-Only Order will be adjusted to rank

and display at its original entered limit price.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Phlx notes that a Post-Only Order will always be adjusted
in this scenario, regardless of its port setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If entered at a price that crossed a Protected Quotation, and if
the NBBO changes such that it can be ranked at the price of the
Protected Quotation it crossed, the Post-Only Order, based on the
Participant's choice, may either be (i) cancelled or (ii) adjusted to
rank at the price of the Protected Quotation it crossed upon entry with
its displayed price remaining unchanged.
    If, after being posted on the Phlx Book, the non-displayed price of
a resting Post-Only Order becomes locked or crossed by a Protected
Quotation due to a change in the NBBO, or if the Post-Only Order is at
an impermissible price under Regulation NMS or the Plan and it cannot
otherwise be adjusted as above, the Post-Only Order will be cancelled.
Commentary .14
    In removing the current re-pricing functionality, Commentary .014
[sic], which addresses the behavior of current treatment of Price to
Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-
Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in
Test Group Three Pilot Securities, is no longer necessary.\17\ The
Exchange therefore proposes to delete this Commentary from the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Under Commentary .14, the current treatment of Price to
Comply Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and
Post-Only Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE
protocols in Test Group Three securities is as follows:
    Until December 12, 2016, the treatment of Price to Comply
Orders, Price to Display Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only
Orders that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in Test
Group Three securities shall be as follows:
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to
Comply Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Comply Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Price to
Display Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO until such time as
the Price to Display Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its
original entered limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, a Non-Displayed
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO up (down) to the
Order's limit price.
    Following entry, and if market conditions allow, the Post-Only
Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security will be adjusted
repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price
on the Exchange Book, as applicable until such time as the Post-Only
Order is able to be ranked and displayed at its original entered
limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Phlx proposes to add language to Rule 3317(d)(1) to
clarify the treatment of orders in a Test Group Three Security entered
through the RASH or FIX protocols. Specifically, subject to the
provisions set forth in the remainder of Rule 3317(d), if the entered
limit price of an Order in a Test Group Three Pilot Security, entered
through RASH or FIX, locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the
NBBO changes so that the Order can be ranked closer to its original
entered limit price, the price of the Order will be adjusted repeatedly
in accordance with changes to the NBBO. Phlx is proposing to make this
change to clarify the current treatment of orders in Test Group Three
Pilot Securities entered through RASH or FIX.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act because it clarifies the changes the Exchange is making to
the handling of certain Order Types necessary to implement the
requirements of the Plan on its System and, in the case of the changes
of Rule 3317(d)(1), to clarify the current treatment of orders in Test
Group Three Pilot Securities entered through RASH or FIX.
    As a result of removing the current re-pricing functionality that
applies to certain Order Types in Test Group Three Securities entered
through the OUCH and FLITE protocols, and due to the different
functionality of the OUCH and FLITE protocols in comparison to the
other applicable Phlx protocols, these Order Types will behave
differently than is currently set forth in Rule 3317 when entered
through the OUCH or FLITE protocols in certain instances. As noted
above, these changes will adjust Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed
Orders, and Post-Only Orders entered through OUCH and FLITE when the
Order has been ranked at a midpoint of the NBBO that then becomes
impermissible due to changes in the NBBO. These changes also will
adjust Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only
Orders entered through OUCH and FLITE in scenarios where the subsequent
movement of the NBBO implicates the Trade-at prohibition with respect
to the resting order.
    By clarifying the behavior of certain Order Types in Test Group
Three Pilot Securities entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols, the
proposal will help allow market participants to continue to trade NMS
Stocks, within quoting and trading requirements that are in compliance
with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and trading
interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage market
participants to continue to provide liquidity in the marketplace.
    More generally, Phlx also notes that the Plan, which was approved
by the Commission pursuant to an order issued by the Commission in
reliance on Section 11A of the Act,\20\ provides the Exchange authority
to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and
trading requirements specified in the Plan. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the authority granted to it
by the Plan to establish specifications and procedures for the
implementation and operation of the Plan that are consistent with the
provisions of the Plan. Likewise, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change provides interpretations of the Plan that are
consistent with the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of the
Act, in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Phlx believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act
because the proposed functionality will more closely align the handling
of Price to Comply Orders, Non-Displayed Orders, and Post-Only Orders
that are entered through the OUCH or FLITE protocols for Test Group
Three Pilot Securities with the handling of such Orders entered through
the OUCH or FLITE protocols for Control Group, Test Group One and Test
Group Two Securities than the current functionality in place for these
Orders.

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. The proposed changes are being
made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and
quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other

equities exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national
securities exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting
requirements specified in the Plan, and must take the same steps that
the Exchange has to conform its existing rules to the requirements of
the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose any burden
on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and execution of
trading interests on the Exchange to market participants in NMS Stocks
that are acting in compliance with the requirements specified in the
Plan.

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)(iii) of the Act \21\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \23\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\24\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. In this filing, the
Exchange has asked that the Commission waive the requirement that the
proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of
the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes the proposed rule is intended to clarify the
differences in the handling of certain orders entered into the system
by different protocols. The Exchange notes that orders will be treated
as consistently as possible across the Test Groups and the Control
Group while complying with each grouping's varied quoting and trading
requirements. Additionally, the Exchange proposed to remove Commentary
.14 because it is no longer necessary.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal clarifies the Exchange's rules and provides
transparency to members with regards to the handling of certain orders
entered via OUCH and FLITE as well as RASH or FIX protocols for locked
or crossed orders in Test Group Three Pilot Securities. The Commission
notes that the Exchange proposed to remove the functionality described
in Commentary .14 and make the necessary corresponding systems changes
in Partial Amendment No. 2 to Phlx-2016-92, which the Commission
approved.\25\ The Exchange notes that it was able to implement the
systems changes and that they became fully operational on the December
14, 2016. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative on
December 14, 2016.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 5
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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-Phlx-2016-121 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-121. 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-Phlx-2016-121 and should be
submitted on or before January 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31106 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41595-41597]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17571]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0618; Special Conditions No. 23-295-SC]

Special Conditions: Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Model PC-12/47E
Airplanes; Electronic Engine Control System Installation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd., Model PC-12/47E airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature associated with installation of an engine that
includes an electronic engine control system. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is August 15,
2019.
    The FAA must receive your comments by September 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0618
using any of the following methods:
    [squ] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    [squ] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [squ] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [squ] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket
website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pretz, AIR-691, Small Airplane
Standards Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code Sec. Sec.
553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are unnecessary because substantially identical
special conditions have been subject to the public comment process in
several prior instances such that the FAA is satisfied that new
comments are unlikely. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Special conditions No.               Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-253-SC \1\........................  Diamond Aircraft Industries/Model
                                        DA-40NG.
23-267-SC \2\........................  Cirrus Design Corporation/Model
                                        SF50.
23-282-SC \3\........................  Pilatus Aircraft Ltd./Model PC-
                                        24.
23-292-SC \4\........................  Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam
                                        S.P.A./Model P2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Invited
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/1A102658468C62D386257950004D7183?OpenDocument.
    \2\ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2015-09-23/2015-24156/summary.
    \3\ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2017-07-17/2017-14936.
    \4\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/26/2019-08476/special-conditions-costruzioni-aeronautiche-tecnam-spa-model-p2012-airplane-electronic-engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
asks that you send two copies of written comments.
    The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if
it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may
change these special conditions based on the comments received.

Background

    On March 9, 2017, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) applied for FAA
validation of its change to Type Certificate No. A78EU \5\ for
installation of an electronic engine control (EEC) system--commonly
referred to as a full authority digital engine control (FADEC)--in the
Model PC-12/47E airplane. The Model PC-12/47E is a normal category,
metallic, pressurized, low-wing, monoplane that seats nine passengers
and two flightcrew. A single Pratt & Whitney PT6E-67XP \6\ engine
driving a

five bladed variable pitch constant speed Hartzell propeller powers the
airplane. The airplane has retractable tricycle landing gear, a
Honeywell Primus APEX avionics suite, and a maximum takeoff weight of
10,450 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/019EED2BA802A848862583360061A683?OpenDocument&Highlight=a78eu.
    \6\ As of this special condition publishing date, engine
approval is in process. The final engine model number will be
updated on Type Certification Data Sheet A78EU upon engine approval
completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Model PC-12/47E is equipped with a single Pratt & Whitney PT6E-
67XP that uses an EEC system instead of a traditional mechanical
control system. Although the EEC is certificated with the engine, the
installation of an EEC requires evaluation due to critical
environmental effects and possible effects on or by other airplane
systems such as indirect effects of lightning, radio interference with
other airplane electronic systems, and shared engine, airplane data,
and power sources.
    Sections 23.1306, 23.1308, and 23.1309 contain requirements for
evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic
systems and critical environmental effects. However, the use of EECs
for engines was not envisioned when Sec.  23.1309 was published. The
integral nature of these systems makes it necessary to ensure proper
evaluation of the airplane functions, which may be included in the EEC,
and that the installation does not degrade the EEC reliability approved
under part 33 during engine type certification. Sections 23.1306(a) and
23.1308(a) apply to the EEC to ensure it remains equivalent to a
mechanical only system, which is not generally susceptible to the High
Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) and lightning environments.
    In some cases, the airplane in which the engine is installed
determines a higher classification than the engine controls are
certificated for, requiring the EEC systems be analyzed at a higher
classification. As of November 2005, EEC special conditions mandated
the Sec.  23.1309 classification for loss of EEC control as
catastrophic for any airplane. This is not to imply an engine failure
is classified as catastrophic, but that the EEC must provide an
equivalent reliability to mechanical engine controls. In addition,
Sec. Sec.  23.1141(e) and 25.901(b)(2) provide the fault tolerant
design requirements of turbine engine mechanical controls to the EEC
and ensure adequate inspection and maintenance intervals for the EEC.
    Part 23 did not envision the use of full authority EECs and lacks
the specific regulatory requirements necessary to provide an adequate
level of safety. Therefore, special conditions are necessary.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Pilatus must show that the
Model PC-12/47E airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A78EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the
date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by
reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the
``original type certification basis.'' In addition to the original type
certification basis, the FAA has determined that the Model PC-12/47E
must also comply with Sec.  23. 905(d) as amended by amendment 23-59,
Sec.  23.1306 as amended by amendment 23-61, Sec.  23.1308 as amended
by amendment 23-57, and Sec. Sec.  23.1309 and 23.1310 as amended by
amendment 23-62.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations in part 23 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for the Model PC-12/47E airplane because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to
the other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model PC-12/47E must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model PC-12/47E airplane will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features:
    The installation of an EEC system, which is the generic family of
electrical/electronic engine control systems to include full authority
digital engine controls, supervisory controls, and derivatives of these
controls.

Discussion

    This airplane makes use of an electronic engine control system
instead of a traditional mechanical control system, which is a novel
design for this type of airplane. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. Mandating a structured assessment to determine
potential installation issues mitigate concerns that the addition of an
electronic engine control does not produce a failure condition not
previously considered.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Model PC-12/47E
airplane. Should Pilatus apply at a later date for a change to the type
certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to
that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on the Model PC-12/47E airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702; Pub. L.
113-53, 127 Stat. 584 (49 U.S.C. 44704) note.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-12/47E
airplanes.

Installation of Electronic Engine Control System

    (a) For electronic engine control (EEC) system installations, it
must be established that no single failure or malfunction or probable
combinations of failures of EEC system components will have an effect
on the system, as installed in the airplane, that causes the Loss of
Power Control (LOPC) probability of the system to exceed those allowed
in part 33 certification.
    (b) Electronic engine control system installations must be
evaluated for environmental and atmospheric conditions, including
lightning and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). The EEC system
lightning and HIRF

effects that result in LOPC should be considered catastrophic.
    (c) The components of the installation must be constructed,
arranged, and installed to ensure their continued safe operation
between normal inspections or overhauls.
    (d) Functions incorporated into any electronic engine control that
make it part of any equipment, systems or installation whose functions
are beyond that of basic engine control, and which may also introduce
system failures and malfunctions, are not exempt from Sec.  23.1309 and
must be shown to meet part 23 levels of safety as derived from Sec.
23.1309. Part 33 certification data, if applicable, may be used to show
compliance with any part 23 requirements. If part 33 data is used to
substantiate compliance with part 23 requirements, then the part 23
applicant must be able to provide this data for its showing of
compliance.

    Note:  The term ``probable'' in the context of ``probable
combination of failures'' does not have the same meaning as used for
a safety assessment process. The term ``probable'' in ``probable
combination of failures'' means ``foreseeable,'' or those failure
conditions anticipated to occur one or more times during the
operational life of each airplane.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 9, 2019.
Pat Mullen,
Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17571 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43439]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19674]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10412; 34-8158; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-
Frank Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 12, 2017 from 9:30
a.m. until 3:10 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or
before October 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a
discussion regarding blockchain and other distributed ledger technology
and implications for securities markets; an overview of law school
clinic advocacy efforts on behalf of retail investors; a discussion
regarding electronic delivery of information to retail investors (which
may include a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser
Subcommittee); subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative
work session during lunch.

    Dated: September 12, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19674 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P