[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17902-17907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06055]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97167; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-12]

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

March 20, 2023.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 March 9, 2023, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to: (i) modify the
volume thresholds for the volume criteria in all tiers (described
below) set forth in the Exchange's Market Maker \3\ Sliding Scale for
Market Maker transaction fees (the ``Sliding Scale''); and (ii) modify
the volume thresholds for the volume criteria for tiers 2, 3, and 4 for
Priority Customer \4\ orders in the Priority Customer Rebate Program
(the ``PCRP,'' described below).\5\ The Exchange originally filed this
proposal on February 28, 2023 (SR-MIAX-2023-10). On March 9, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew SR-MIAX-2023-10 and resubmitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100.
    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In general, the Exchange assesses transaction fees to all Market
Makers, which are based upon a threshold tier structure. Section 1)a)i)
of the Fee Schedule sets forth the Market Maker Sliding Scale for
Market Maker transaction fees. Pursuant to the Sliding Scale, the
Exchange assesses a per contract transaction fee on a Market Maker for
the execution of simple orders and quotes (collectively, ``simple
orders'') and complex orders and quotes (collectively, ``complex
orders'') based on the tier achieved. For Market Makers, the percentage
threshold by tier is based on the Market Maker's percentage of total
national Market Maker volume in all multiply-listed options classes
that trade on the Exchange during a particular calendar month, or total
aggregated volume (``TAV''), and the Exchange aggregates the volume
executed by Market Makers in both simple and complex orders for
purposes of determining the applicable tier and corresponding per
contract transaction fee amount.\6\ The Sliding Scale applies to all
MIAX Market Makers for transactions in all multiply-listed products
(except for mini-options), with fees established for standard option
classes in the Penny Interval Program \7\ (``Penny Classes'') and
separate fees for standard option classes which are not in the Penny
Program (``non-Penny Classes''), and further based on whether the
Market Maker is acting as a ``Maker'' or a ``Taker'' in simple
orders.\8\ Market Makers that place resting liquidity, i.e., quotes or
orders on the MIAX System,\9\ are assessed the ``maker'' fee (each a
``Maker''). Market Makers that execute against (remove) resting
liquidity are generally assessed a higher ``taker'' fee (each a
``Taker'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The calculation of the volume thresholds does not include
QCC and cQCC Orders, PRIME and cPRIME AOC Responses, and unrelated
MIAX Market Maker quotes or unrelated MIAX Market Maker orders that
are received during the Response Time Interval and executed against
the PRIME Order (``PRIME Participating Quotes or Orders'') and
unrelated MIAX Market Maker complex quotes or unrelated MIAX Market
Maker complex orders that are received during the Response Time
Interval and executed against a cPRIME Order (``cPRIME Participating
Quote or Order'') (herein ``Excluded Contracts''). See Fee Schedule,
page 2.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88988 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35153 (June 8, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2020-13). See also
Exchange Rule 510(c).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78519 (August 9,
2016), 81 FR 54162 (August 15, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-21).
    \9\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange provides certain discounted Market Maker
transaction fees for Members \10\ and their qualified Affiliates \11\
that achieve certain volume thresholds through the submission of
Priority Customer orders under the Exchange's PCRP. Market Maker
transaction fees are set forth in two tables in Section 1)a)i) of the
Fee

Schedule: the first table sets forth the transaction fees applicable to
Members and their Affiliates that are in PCRP volume tier 3 or higher;
and the second table sets forth the transaction fees applicable to
Members and their Affiliates that are not in PCRP volume tier 3 or
higher. The Sliding Scale also includes Maker and Taker fees in both
tables in each tier for simple orders in Penny Classes and non-Penny
Classes, where the fees are discounted/differentiated between the
tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ The term ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member
of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on
each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, (``Affiliate''), or (ii) the
Appointed Market Maker of an Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the
Appointed EEM of an Appointed Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market
Maker'' is a MIAX Market Maker (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with an EEM) that
has been appointed by an EEM and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who
does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based upon common
ownership with a MIAX Market Maker) that has been appointed by a
MIAX Market Maker, pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Market
Maker appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Market Maker, for
the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each completing and sending an
executed Volume Aggregation Request Form by email to
[email protected] no later than 2 business days prior to
the first business day of the month in which the designation is to
become effective. Transmittal of a validly completed and executed
form to the Exchange along with the Exchange's acknowledgement of
the effective designation to each of the Market Maker and EEM will
be viewed as acceptance of the appointment. The Exchange will only
recognize one designation per Member. A Member may make a
designation not more than once every 12 months (from the date of its
most recent designation), which designation shall remain in effect
unless or until the Exchange receives written notice submitted 2
business days prior to the first business day of the month from
either Member indicating that the appointment has been terminated.
Designations will become operative on the first business day of the
effective month and may not be terminated prior to the end of the
month. Execution data and reports will be provided to both parties.
See Fee Schedule, note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule describes the PCRP. Pursuant
to the PCRP, the Exchange credits each Member the per contract amount
set forth in the PCRP table \12\ resulting from each Priority Customer
order transmitted by that Member which is executed electronically on
the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes, provided the Member
meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described in the PCRP
table. However, the Exchange excludes the following orders from
participating in the PCRP: in simple or complex, as applicable, QCC
\13\ and cQCC Orders,\14\ mini-options, Priority Customer-to-Priority
Customer Orders, C2C,\15\ cC2C Orders,\16\ PRIME and cPRIME AOC
Responses, PRIME and cPRIME contra-side orders, PRIME \17\ and cPRIME
Orders,\18\ for which both the Agency and contra-side order are
Priority Customers, and executions related to contracts that are routed
to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Rule
1400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes an exception for broken up cPRIME Agency
Orders in the PCRP, which are subject to the per contract credits
described in the cPRIME Agency Order Break-up Table in Section
1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule, below the PCRP table.
    \13\ A Qualified Contingent Cross Order is comprised of an
originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000
mini-option contracts, that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in
Interpretations and Policies .01 below, coupled with a contra-side
order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. See Exchange
Rule 516(j).
    \14\ A Complex Qualified Contingent Cross or ``cQCC'' Order is
comprised of an originating complex order to buy or sell where each
component is at least 1,000 contracts that is identified as being
part of a qualified contingent trade, as defined in Rule 516,
Interpretations and Policies .01, coupled with a contra-side complex
order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. Trading of
cQCC Orders is governed by Rule 515(h)(4). See Exchange Rule
518(b)(6).
    \15\ A Customer Cross Order is comprised of a Priority Customer
Order to buy and a Priority Customer Order to sell at the same price
and for the same quantity. See Exchange Rule 516(i).
    \16\ A Complex Customer Cross or ``cC2C'' Order is comprised of
one Priority Customer complex order to buy and one Priority Customer
complex order to sell at the same price and for the same quantity.
Trading of cC2C Orders is governed by Rule 515(h)(3). See Exchange
Rule 518(b)(5).
    \17\ The Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') is a process by
which a Member may electronically submit for execution (``Auction'')
an order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against principal
interest, and/or an Agency Order against solicited interest. See
Exchange Rule 515A(a).
    \18\ Members may use PRIME to execute complex orders at a net
price. ``cPRIME'' is the process by which a Member may
electronically submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Exchange
Rule 518(b)(7)) it represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'')
against principal or solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME
Auction''), pursuant to the provisions of Exchange Rule 515A. See
Exchange Rule 515A, Interpretation and Policy .12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volume for transactions in both simple and complex and in
applicable PRIME and cPRIME orders in the PCRP are aggregated to
determine the appropriate volume tier threshold applicable to each
transaction. Volume is recorded for, and credits are delivered to, the
Member that submits the order to MIAX. MIAX aggregates the contracts
resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed
electronically on MIAX from Members and their Affiliates for purposes
of the volume thresholds described in the PCRP table.
Modifications to Volume Criteria Percentage Thresholds in all Tiers for
the Market Maker Origin Applicable to Members and Affiliates in PCRP
Volume Tier 3 or Higher
    Currently, the Market Maker Sliding Scale volume thresholds
applicable to Members and their Affiliates that are in PCRP volume tier
3 or higher are as follows: (i) 0.00% to 0.075% in tier 1; (ii) above
0.075% to 0.70% in tier 2; (iii) above 0.70% to 1.10% in tier 3; (iv)
above 1.10% to 1.50% in tier 4; and (v) above 1.50% in tier 5.\19\ For
these types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker in Penny
Classes for simple orders, the Exchange assesses per contract fees as
follows: $0.21 in tier 1, $0.16 in tier 2, $0.10 in tier 3, $0.05 in
tier 4, and $0.03 in tier 5. For these types of transactions where the
Market Maker is a Taker in Penny Classes for simple orders, the
Exchange assesses per contract fees as follows: $0.23 in tier 1, $0.22
in tier 2, $0.19 in tier 3, $0.18 in tier 4, and $0.17 in tier 5. For
these types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker in non-
Penny Classes for simple orders, the Exchange assesses per contract
fees as follows: $0.25 in tier 1, $0.19 in tier 2, $0.12 in tier 3,
$0.08 in tier 4, and $0.06 in tier 5. For these types of transactions
where the Market Maker is a Taker in non-Penny Classes for simple
orders, the Exchange assesses per contract fees as follows: $0.30 in
tier 1, $0.27 in tier 2, $0.23 in tier 3, $0.22 in tier 4, and $0.21 in
tier 5. For these types of transactions where the Market Maker is a
Maker or Taker in Penny Classes for complex orders, the Exchange
assesses per contract fees as follows: $0.25 in tier 1, $0.24 in tier
2, $0.21 in tier 3, $0.20 in tier 4, and $0.19 in tier 5. For these
types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker or Taker in
non-Penny Classes for complex orders, the Exchange assesses per
contract fees as follows: $0.32 in tier 1, $0.29 in tier 2, $0.25 in
tier 3, $0.24 in tier 4, and $0.23 in tier 5. The Exchange also
assesses a surcharge of $0.12 per contract in all tiers for Market
Maker transactions in complex orders when the Market Maker is trading
against a Priority Customer complex order in Penny and non-Penny
Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)i), page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the volume thresholds for the
volume criteria for the Market Maker Sliding Scale applicable to
Members and their Affiliates that are in PCRP volume tier 3 or higher
as follows: (i) tier 1 will be amended from 0.00% to 0.075% to now be
0.00% to 0.40%; (ii) tier 2 will be amended from above 0.075% to 0.70%
to now be above 0.40% to 0.80%; (iii) tier 3 will be amended from above
0.70% to 1.10% to now be above 0.80% to 1.20%; (iv) tier 4 will be
amended from above 1.10% to 1.50% to now be above 1.20% to 1.60%; and
(v) tier 5 will be amended from above 1.50% to now be above 1.60%. The
Exchange does not proposes to amend any of the Maker or Taker fee
amounts pursuant to this proposal.
Modifications to Volume Criteria Percentage Thresholds in all Tiers for
the Market Maker Origin Applicable to Members and Affiliates That Are
Not in PCRP Volume Tier 3 or Higher
    Currently, the Market Maker Sliding Scale volume thresholds
applicable to Members and their Affiliates that are not in PCRP volume
tier 3 or higher are as follows: (i) 0.00% to 0.075% in tier 1; (ii)
above 0.075% to 0.70% in tier 2; (iii) above 0.70% to 1.10% in tier 3;
(iv) above 1.10% to 1.50% in tier 4; and (v) above 1.50% in tier 5.\20\
For these types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker in
Penny Classes for simple orders, the Exchange assesses per contract
fees as follows: $0.23 in tier 1, $0.18 in tier 2, $0.12 in tier 3,
$0.07 in tier 4, and $0.05 in tier 5. For these types of transactions
where the Market Maker is a Taker in Penny Classes for simple orders,
the Exchange assesses per contract fees as follows: $0.25 in tier 1,
$0.24 in tier 2, $0.21 in tier 3, $0.20 in tier 4, and $0.19 in tier 5.
For these types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker in
non-Penny Classes

for simple orders, the Exchange assesses per contract fees as follows:
$0.27 in tier 1, $0.21 in tier 2, $0.14 in tier 3, $0.10 in tier 4, and
$0.08 in tier 5. For these types of transactions where the Market Maker
is a Taker in non-Penny Classes for simple orders, the Exchange
assesses per contract fees as follows: $0.32 in tier 1, $0.29 in tier
2, $0.25 in tier 3, $0.24 in tier 4, and $0.23 in tier 5. For these
types of transactions where the Market Maker is a Maker or Taker in
Penny Classes for complex orders, the Exchange assesses per contract
fees as follows: $0.25 in tier 1, $0.24 in tier 2, $0.21 in tier 3,
$0.20 in tier 4, and $0.19 in tier 5. For these types of transactions
where the Market Maker is a Maker or Taker in non-Penny Classes for
complex orders, the Exchange assesses per contract fees as follows:
$0.32 in tier 1, $0.29 in tier 2, $0.25 in tier 3, $0.24 in tier 4, and
$0.23 in tier 5. The Exchange also assesses a surcharge of $0.12 per
contract in all tiers for Market Maker transactions in complex orders
when the Market Maker is trading against a Priority Customer complex
order in Penny and non-Penny Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)i), page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the volume thresholds for the
volume criteria for the Market Maker Sliding Scale applicable to
Members and their Affiliates that are not in PCRP volume tier 3 or
higher as follows: (i) tier 1 will be amended from 0.00% to 0.075% to
now be 0.00% to 0.40%; (ii) tier 2 will be amended from above 0.075% to
0.70% to now be above 0.40% to 0.80%; (iii) tier 3 will be amended from
above 0.70% to 1.10% to now be above 0.80% to 1.20%; (iv) tier 4 will
be amended from above 1.10% to 1.50% to now be above 1.20% to 1.60%;
and (v) tier 5 will be amended from above 1.50% to now be above 1.60%.
The Exchange does not proposes to amend any of the Maker or Taker fee
amounts pursuant to this proposal.
    The purpose of adjusting the percentage thresholds for the volume
criteria in all tiers of the Market Maker Sliding Scale for both tables
is for business and competitive reasons. In order to attract order
flow, the Exchange initially set its volume thresholds so that they
were meaningfully lower than other options exchanges. The Exchange now
believes that it is appropriate to adjust the volume thresholds so that
they are more in line with other exchanges, but will still remain
highly competitive such that it should enable the Exchange to continue
to attract order flow and maintain market share.
    For example, NYSE American, LLC (``NYSE American'') provides a
similar sliding scale for NYSE American Options Market Maker
transactions. Pursuant to the NYSE American Options Market Maker
sliding scale, the NYSE American Market Maker's tier for transaction
fees is calculated based on that Market Maker's average daily volume
(``ADV'') as a percentage of TCADV.\21\ Similar to the Exchange's
Market Maker Sliding Scale, the NYSE American Options Market Maker
sliding scale tiers are as follows (including applicable fees for
``non-take volume'' and ``take volume''): \22\ (i) 0.00% to 0.25% in
tier 1 (per contract fee of $0.25 regardless of non-take or take
volume); (ii) above 0.25% to 0.70% in tier 2 (per contract fees of
$0.22 for non-take volume and $0.24 for take volume); (iii) above 0.70%
to 1.50% in tier 3 (per contract fees of $0.12 for non-take volume and
$0.17 for take volume); and (iv) above 1.50% in tier 4 (per contract
fees of $0.09 for non-take volume and $0.14 for take volume).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``TCADV'' refers to Total Industry Customer equity and ETF
option average daily volume. TCADV includes OCC calculated Customer
volume of all types, including Complex Order transactions and QCC
transactions, in equity and ETF options. See NYSE American Options
Fee Schedule, Key Terms and Definitions.
    \22\ For the purposes of the Sliding Scale transaction charges,
all eligible volume that does not remove liquidity will be
considered ``non-take volume''; whereas all volume that removes
liquidity will be considered ``take volume.'' See NYSE American
Options Fee Schedule, Section I.C. NYSE American Options Market
Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic, page 9-10.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications to Volume Criteria Percentage Thresholds in PCRP Tiers 2,
3 and 4
    Currently, the volume thresholds applicable to Priority Customer
orders in PCRP tiers 2, 3 and 4 are as follows: (i) above 0.50% to
1.20% in tier 2; (ii) above 1.20% to 1.75% in tier 3; and (iii) above
1.75% in tier 4.\24\ For Priority Customer orders in the PCRP, the
Exchange provides a per contract credit for simple orders in non-MIAX
Select Symbols \25\ as follows: $0.00 in tier 1, $0.10 in tier 2, $0.15
in tier 3, and $0.21 in tier 4. For Priority Customer orders in the
PCRP, the Exchange provides a per contract credit for simple orders in
MIAX Select Symbols as follows: $0.00 in tier 1, $0.10 in tier 2, $0.18
in tier 3, and $0.24 in tier 4. For Priority Customer orders in the
PCRP, the Exchange provides a per contract credit for PRIME Agency
Orders as follows: $0.10 in tier 1, $0.11 in tier 2, $0.11 in tier 3,
and $0.11 in tier 4. For Priority Customer orders in the PCRP, the
Exchange provides a per contract credit for cPRIME Agency orders based
on the order break-up percentage, described in the cPRIME Agency Order
Break-up Table in Section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule.\26\ For
Priority Customer orders in the PCRP, the Exchange provides a per
contract credit for complex orders as follows: $0.20 in tier 1, $0.21
in tier 2, $0.26 or $0.27 in tier 3 (depending on whether the executing
buyer and seller are the same Member and Affiliate or not),\27\ and
$0.27 or $0.28 in tier 4 (depending on whether the executing buyer and
seller are the same Member and Affiliate or not).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii), page 5.
    \25\ The term ``MIAX Select Symbols'' means options overlying
AAL, AAPL, AMAT, AMD, AMZN, BA, BABA, BB, BIDU, BP, C, CAT, CLF,
CVX, DAL, EBAY, EEM, FCX, GE, GILD, GLD, GM, GOOGL, GPRO, HAL, INTC,
IWM, JNJ, JPM, KMI, KO, META, MO, MRK, NFLX, NOK, ORCL, PBR, PFE,
PG, QCOM, QQQ, RIG, SPY, T, TSLA, USO, VALE, WBA, WFC, WMB, X, XHB,
XLE, XLF, XLP, XOM and XOP. See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii), note
14.
    \26\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii), cPRIME Agency Order
Break-up Table.
    \27\ See Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)iii), notes K and [ssquf].
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the volume thresholds for the
volume criteria for Priority Customer orders in PCRP tiers 2, 3 and 4
as follows: (i) tier 2 will be amended from above 0.50% to 1.20% to now
be above 0.50% to 1.50%; (ii) tier 3 will be amended from above 1.20%
to 1.75% to now be above 1.50% to 2.00%; and (iv) tier 4 will be
amended from above 1.75% to now be above 2.00%. The Exchange does not
propose to amend any of the credit amounts in the PCRP pursuant to this
proposal.
    The purpose of adjusting the percentage thresholds for the volume
criteria in tiers 2, 3 and 4 of the PCRP is for business and
competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow, the Exchange
initially set its volume thresholds so that they were meaningfully
lower than other options exchanges. The Exchange now believes that it
is appropriate to adjust the volume thresholds so that they are more in
line with other exchanges, but will still remain highly competitive
such that it should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order
flow and maintain market share.
    For example, NYSE American provides a similar range of volume
thresholds for its American Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program.
Pursuant to the ACE Program, NYSE American Customer tiers for credits
are calculated utilizing two different methods: (1) based on the
Customer's electronic ADV as a percentage of TCADV; or (2) based on the
total electronic ADV (of which 20% or greater of the minimum qualifying
volume for each tier must be

Customer) as a percentage of TCADV.\29\ The ACE Program provides
similar volume thresholds as the PCRP, which are as follows: (i) less
than 0.40% in the Base tier; (ii) 0.40% to 0.75% in tier 1; (iii) above
0.75% to 1.00% in tier 2; (iv) above 1.00% to 1.25% in tier 3; (v)
above 1.25% to 1.75% in tier 4; and (vi) above 1.75% in tier 5.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section I.E.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed changes are immediately effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to the Fee Schedule
are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \31\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\32\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange Members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\33\ in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \34\ There are currently
16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange had more than 12.93% of the market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and exchange-traded fund (``ETF'')
options trades for the month of February 2023.\35\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
the Exchange had a market share of 6.82% of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options for the month of February
2023.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
    \35\ See ``The Market at a Glance,'' available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited March 9, 2023).
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market shares among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to transaction and/or non-
transaction fee changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl''), filed with the
Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain tiers for
options transactions in certain Penny Classes for Priority Customers
and decrease Maker rebates in certain tiers for options transactions in
Penny Classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective
March 1, 2019).\37\ MIAX Pearl experienced a decrease in total market
share between the months of February and March of 2019, after the fees
were in effect. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the MIAX Pearl
March 1, 2019 fee change may have contributed to the decrease in MIAX
Pearl's market share and, as such, the Exchange believes competitive
forces constrain options exchange transaction fees and market
participants can shift order flow based on fee changes instituted by
the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to modify the volume thresholds
for the volume criteria in all Market Maker Sliding Scale tiers and in
tiers 2, 3 and 4 for Priority Customer orders in the PCRP is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
these changes are for business and competitive reasons. In order to
attract order flow, the Exchange initially set its volume thresholds at
meaningful low levels. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate
to adjust these volume thresholds so that they are more reflective of
the current operating conditions and the current type and amount of
volume (Market Maker and Priority Customer orders) executed on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed volume thresholds
will still allow the Exchange to remain highly competitive such that
the thresholds should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order
flow and maintain market share.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to modify the volume thresholds
for the volume criteria in all Market Maker Sliding Scale tiers and in
tiers 2, 3 and 4 for Priority Customer orders in the PCRP is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
similarly situated market participants in the same origin type are
subject to the same volume thresholds, as proposed. With the proposed
changes, Market Makers will have to increase their volume as a
percentage threshold in order to achieve the lower fees afforded by the
higher tiers of the Sliding Scale for both Market Maker transaction fee
tables in simple and complex orders, as applicable. The Exchange cannot
predict with certainty how many Market Makers with volume applicable to
either table of the Sliding Scale will be impacted by the proposed
higher volume thresholds; however, the Exchange notes that all Market
Makers will be subject to the proposed thresholds, but based on volume
in recent months, up to six Market Makers may be impacted by the
proposed higher threshold volume requirements of the Sliding Scale to
achieve lower transaction fees in simple (Penny and non-Penny Classes)
and complex orders. However, even with the proposed volume threshold
changes, the Exchange believes its volume thresholds will still allow
the Exchange to remain highly competitive such that the thresholds
should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order flow and
maintain market share. As the amount and type of volume that is
executed on the Exchange has shifted since it first established the
Market Maker Sliding Scale, provided that the Market Maker and its
Affiliates are in tier 3 of higher of the PCRP or not, the Exchange has
determined to level-set the volume criteria threshold amounts so that
they are more reflective of the current operating conditions and the
current type and amount of volume executed on the Exchange.
    Similarly, with the proposed changes, market participants will need
increased volume as a percentage threshold of Priority Customer orders
in the PCRP in order to achieve the higher rebates afforded by the
higher tiers of the PCRP in simple and complex orders and PRIME and
cPRIME Agency orders, as applicable. The Exchange cannot

predict with certainty how many market participants will be impacted by
the proposed higher volume thresholds of the PCRP. However, even with
the proposed volume threshold changes, the Exchange believes its volume
thresholds will still allow the Exchange to remain highly competitive
such that the thresholds should enable the Exchange to continue to
attract order flow and maintain market share. As the amount and type of
volume that is executed on the Exchange has shifted since it first
established the PCRP, the Exchange has determined to level-set the
volume criteria threshold amounts so that they are more reflective of
the current operating conditions and the current type and amount of
volume executed on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to modify the volume thresholds for the volume criteria
in all Market Maker Sliding Scale tiers and in tiers 2, 3 and 4 for
Priority Customer orders in the PCRP for business and competitive
reasons because the Exchange initially set its volume thresholds so
that they were meaningfully lower than other options exchanges. The
Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to adjust the volume
thresholds so that they are more in line with other exchanges,\38\ but
will still remain highly competitive such that it should enable the
Exchange to continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.
The Exchange cannot predict with certainty, but the Exchange notes that
even with the proposed increase to the volume thresholds for the volume
criteria in tiers 2, 3 and 4 for Priority Customer orders in the PCRP,
no Affiliated Market Makers will be affected (with the determining
factor being Market Makers in PCRP tier 3 or higher or not being in
PCRP tier 3 or higher). Stated another way, with the proposed changes
to the PCRP volume threshold criteria, Market Makers with Affiliates in
PCRP tier 3 or higher will continue to remain the same respective
Market Maker Sliding Scale table. Likewise, Market Makers with
Affiliates not in PCRP tier 3 or higher will continue to remain in the
same respective Market Maker Sliding Scale table. The Market Makers
that were not in PCRP tier 3 or higher prior to the proposed changes
will continue to remain in the same respective Market Maker Sliding
Scale table. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed changes
are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
changes to the PCRP volume criteria thresholds will impact all Market
Makers equally when determining which transaction fee table they are
assessed for the Market Maker Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See supra notes 22 and 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes its proposal will not impose any burden on
intra-market competition because the Exchange believes that its
proposal will not place any category of Exchange market participant at
a competitive disadvantage because the changes would apply equally
among market participants that have Priority Customer orders receive
credits pursuant to the PCRP. As the amount and type of volume that is
executed on the Exchange has shifted since it first established the
PCRP and Market Maker Sliding Scale, the Exchange has determined to
level-set the volume criteria threshold amounts so that they are more
reflective of the current operating conditions and the current type and
amount of volume executed on the Exchange. The proposal to modify the
volume thresholds is intended to improve market quality. The Exchange
believes that its proposal will continue to encourage additional Market
Maker and Priority Customer volume to be executed on the Exchange,
which will attract further liquidity to the Exchange and benefit all
market participants. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes will continue to attract order flow to the Exchange,
thereby encouraging additional volume and liquidity to the benefit of
all market participants.
    The Exchange believes its proposal will not impose any burden on
inter-market competition because the Exchange notes that it operates in
a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. There are currently 16 registered options exchanges
competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and
excluding index-based options, no single exchange had more than 12.93%
of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and
ETF options trades for the month of February 2023.\39\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
the Exchange had a market share of 6.82% of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options for the month of February
2023.\40\ In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and tiers to remain competitive with other options exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and tiers in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
reflect this competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's
fees in a manner that encourages market participants to continue to
provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 35.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\41\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \42\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2023-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2023-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2023-12 and should be
submitted on or before April 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06055 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30340-30342]
[DOCID:fr27my08-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333; FRL-8571-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Norfolk
Southern Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision
pertains to the removal of a nitrogen oxide (NOX) RACT
permit for sources located at the Norfolk Southern Corporation in
Roanoke, Virginia, which have permanently shut down. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0333 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0333. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 11, 2008, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to the removal of a
NOX RACT permit for sources located at the Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, located in Roanoke, Virginia, that had permanently
shut down.

I. Background

    Prior to the final designations of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area, EPA developed a program to allow potential nonattainment areas to
voluntarily adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality
violations and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air
quality meeting the

 1-hour ozone standard were eligible to participate. In order to
participate, state and local governments and EPA had to develop and
sign a memorandum of agreement that described the local control
measures the state or local community intended to adopt and implement
to reduce emissions of ozone-forming air pollutants. This agreement was
known as an Early Action Compact (EAC). Areas that participated in the
EAC program had the flexibility to institute their own approach in
maintaining clean air and protecting public health.
    Several localities in the Winchester and Roanoke, Virginia areas
elected to participate in the EAC program. Virginia's strategy for
enabling these localities to participate in the EAC program was to have
them be subject to volatile organic compound (VOC) and NOX
control measures from which they had previously been exempt. In order
to enable the affected localities to implement VOC and NOX
controls, the list of VOC and NOX emission control areas in
9 VAC 5-20-206, Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxide Emission
Control Areas, was expanded to include the counties of Botetourt,
Frederick, and Roanoke, and the cities of Roanoke, Salem, and
Winchester. This area became known as the Western Virginia Emissions
Control Area (70 FR 21625, April 27, 2005). As a result, the VOC and
NOX control regulations of Chapter 40 became applicable in
the Roanoke area.
    The Norfolk Southern Railway Company rail car and locomotive
maintenance facility located in Roanoke, Virginia, was identified as
one of the sources located in the Western Virginia Emissions Control
Area subject to RACT. Accordingly, the company prepared a RACT analysis
to support a RACT determination for the control of NOX
emissions from the facility. After undergoing public comment, a state
operating permit was issued to the source to ensure compliance with the
RACT requirements. The permit, No. 20468, was submitted to EPA as a
revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP on February 7, 2005. EPA
published its approval of the SIP revision on April 27, 2005 (70 FR
21621).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On February 11, 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
revision to its SIP which consisted of mutual agreements between the
VDEQ and the Norfolk Southern Corporation for permanent shut downs of
certain NOX RACT-subject sources located at the Norfolk
Southern Corporation complex in Roanoke, Virginia. Since the time of
EPA's approval of the NOX RACT requirements for the Norfolk
Southern Railway Company (70 FR 21621, April 27, 2005), many sources at
the facility, including those that had previously been subject to the
NOX RACT requirements of 9 VAC 5-40, via permit No. 20468,
were permanently shut down. As a result, the VADEQ is requesting that
EPA remove RACT permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP, since it is no
longer applicable. Once EPA has approved this request and VADEQ has
notified Norfolk Southern Corporation of its approval, the permit
repeal will become effective 30 days later.
    The units subject to the NOX RACT requirements of permit
No. 20468, which have permanently shut down, include the following:
Unit ID 8-01--B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler;
Unit ID 8-02--B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler;
Unit ID 8-03--B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler;
Unit ID 8-04--Zurn Energy coal-fired spreader stoker boiler;
Unit ID 43-03--15 open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces;
and Unit ID 51-13/14--one 13-ton capacity electric arc
furnace.
    The February 11, 2008 SIP revision consists of signed mutual
determination agreements of permanent shut downs between the VADEQ and
Norfolk Southern Corporation for the previously identified RACT-subject
sources in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 5-20-220, and
state operating permit regulations 9 VAC 5-80-1210, subsection L. Unit
ID 8-01-B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit
ID 8-02-B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; and
Unit ID 8-03-B&W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler
were permanently shut down as per the shut down agreement between VADEQ
and Northern Southern Corporation, dated August 20, 2007. Unit ID
8-04-Zurn Energy coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID
43-03--15 open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces, and
Unit 15-13/14--one 13-ton capacity electric arc furnace, were
permanently shut down as per the shut down agreement between VADEQ and
Northern Southern Corporation, dated June 22, 2005.

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language

renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally
authorized programs, since ``no immunity could be afforded from
administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such
immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP
revision request, submitted on February 11, 2008, to remove
NOX RACT permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP. The SIP
revision consists of mutual agreements between VADEQ and the Norfolk
Southern Corporation for permanent shut down of the units described
above. EPA is proposing approval of the removal of NOX RACT
permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP with the understanding that no
future operation of this equipment shall occur until the owner has
obtained the applicable permits pursuant to 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 of
Virginia's regulations. Once EPA has approved this request and VADEQ
has notified Norfolk Southern Corporation of EPA's approval, the
removal of permit No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP will become effective
30 days later. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the removal of a
NOX RACT permit from the Virginia SIP for sources at the
Norfolk Southern Corporation that have permanently shut down, does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 14, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-11733 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40664-40666]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16763]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67340; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-060]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the CBOE Stock Exchange Fees Schedule

July 3, 2012.
    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 July 2, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule for its CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBSX proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. First, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate the Maker fee tier for Makers that add 2,500,000-
4,999,999 shares of liquidity in one day (for which such Makers were
assessed a $0.0016 per share rate) and make the lowest Maker tier (and
corresponding $0.0018 per share fee) apply to any Maker that adds
4,999,999 shares or less of liquidity in one day (all Maker and Taker
fees discussed in this filing relate to transactions in securities
priced $1 or greater). CBSX also proposes increasing the per share
rates for the remaining Maker tiers (aside from the lowest Maker tier)
by $0.0002. These changes are proposed for economic and competitive
reasons as CBSX attempts to create a continuum of incentives that will
allow CBSX to compete for liquidity provision and order flow. As such,
the proposed Maker fees for transactions in securities priced $1 or
greater would be as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maker (adds 4,999,999 shares or less    $0.0018 per share.
 of liquidity in one day).
Maker (adds 5,000,000-9,999,999 shares  $0.0017 per share.
 of liquidity in one day).
Maker (adds 10,000,000-14,999,999       $0.0016 per share.
 shares of liquidity in one day).
Maker (adds 15 million shares or more   $0.0015 per share.
 of liquidity in one day).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As before, these rates apply to all transactions in securities
priced $1 or greater made by the same market participant in any day in
which such participant adds the established amount of shares or more of
liquidity that is determined in the chart above for each tier. Market
participants who share a trading acronym or MPID may aggregate their
trading activity for purposes of these rates. Qualification for these
rates will require that a market participant appropriately indicate his
trading acronym and/or MPID in the appropriate field on the order.
    CBSX also proposes amending its Taker rebate structure for
transactions in securities priced $1 or greater.

Currently, for such transactions, the Taker rebate is $0.0015 per
share. CBSX proposes amending this structure so that a Taker who
removes 9,999,999 shares or less of liquidity in one day or has less
than an 85% Execution Rate will continue to receive this $0.0015 rebate
per share. However, a Taker who removes 10,000,000 shares or more of
liquidity in one day and has equal to or greater than an 85% Execution
Rate would receive a rebate of $0.0017 per share. The term ``Execution
Rate'' shall be defined as the total number of orders (count) filled or
partially filled by CBSX for the same market participant for the
previous calendar month divided by the total number of orders sent to
CBSX from the same market participant for the previous calendar month
(rounded to the nearest whole percentage).
    Rejected orders will not count towards determining this Execution
Rate. Canceled orders will count towards determining the total number
of orders sent to CBSX, but not the total number of orders filled or
partially filled. Orders that rest on the CBSX Book until they trade
will incur the Maker fee when they trade, but because they executed,
will count towards improving the market participant's Execution Rate.
The Execution Rate achieved by a market participant for the previous
calendar month will apply to the calendar month that immediately
follows it. For example, if a market participant achieves an Execution
Rate of above 85% for the month of July, then in the month of August,
on any day in which that market participant removes 10,000,000 shares
of liquidity or more, that market participant will receive the $0.0017
per share rebate for all executions that remove liquidity.
    These rates apply to all transactions in securities priced $1 or
greater made by the same market participant in any day in which such
participant removes the established amount of shares or more of
liquidity that is determined in the chart above for each tier. Market
participants who share a trading acronym or MPID may aggregate their
trading activity for purposes of these rates. Qualification for these
rates will require that a market participant appropriately indicate his
trading acronym and/or MPID in the appropriate field on the order.
    The purpose of the change is to encourage market participants to
Take at a greater volume and also to achieve a higher Execution Rate.
CBSX wants to incentivize a higher Execution Rate because CBSX believes
that participants who route order flow that is likely to remove
liquidity will only achieve an 85% or higher Execution Rate if such
participants route such orders to CBSX first (as opposed to routing
such orders to dark pools or other trading centers prior to seeking
execution at ``lit'' exchanges). CBSX desires to create an incentive
for Take orders to be sent to CBSX before being sent to other trading
centers because orders that scrape through multiple trading centers
before CBSX are likely to achieve a lower Execution Rate when the
remainder of such orders make it to CBSX because the market may have
changed by the time such orders (or remainder of such orders) reach
CBSX.
    Because all orders sent by a market participant to CBSX will be
taken into account when calculating the Execution Rate (except rejected
orders), CBSX desires to incentivize the sending of orders that are
likely to execute to CBSX. Orders that are sent to CBSX and rest on the
CBSX Book will count towards raising the market participant's Execution
Rate when the orders execute. This rewards and incentivizes the sending
of orders that are likely to execute. Reaching an 85% Execution Rate
will mean that a market participant is regularly sending in orders that
are likely to execute and is therefore adding useful liquidity to the
market. Indeed, this 85% Execution Rate rewards market participants who
send orders to CBSX with the intention of either trading immediately or
letting the orders rest on the CBSX Book until they execute, thereby
incentivizing passive, as well as active, liquidity provision.
    CBSX proposes to increase the fee for a cross trade that is the
stock component of a qualified contingent trade from $0.0012 per share
to $0.0015 per share and to increase the maximum fee for such
transactions from $25 per trade to $30 per trade for economic and
competitive reasons.
    Finally, CBSX proposes to add a fee of $0.0025 per share (minimum
rate of $1 per trade, maximum rate of $30 per trade) for two-day
settlement of cross trades. CBSX adopted two-day settlement in 2011 \3\
but never adopted or assessed fees for the two-day settlement of cross
trades, and desires to now do so. The amount of the fee (including the
minimum and maximum rates) is the same as the amount for the next-day
settlement of cross trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65417 (September 28,
2011), 76 FR 61772 (October 5, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-089).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which provides that
Exchange rules may provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities. Eliminating the Maker fee tier for
Makers that add 2,500,000-4,999,999 shares of liquidity in one day (for
which such Makers were assessed a $0.0016 per share rate) and making
the lowest Maker tier (and corresponding $0.0018 per share fee) apply
to any Maker that adds 4,999,999 shares or less of liquidity in one
day, and increasing the per-share fees for all other tiers by $0.0002
is reasonable because the amount of the increase is minimal, and the
amounts of the fees are within the range of Maker fees that have been
assessed previously (and the increases do not change the maximum Maker
fee being assessed of $0.0018 per share). The slight increases to the
Maker fees for transactions in securities priced $1 or greater, and the
different Maker tiers themselves, are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the lower fees for market participants who can
reach the higher volume tiers will provide an incentive for market
participants to execute more trades on CBSX, which in turn will provide
for greater volume and liquidity for all CBSX market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amending the Taker fee structure for transactions in securities
priced $1 or greater to provide that a Taker that removes 10,000,000
shares or more of liquidity in one day and achieved an 85% Execution
Rate in the previous calendar month is reasonable because those Takers
who qualify for this tier will be receiving a larger rebate than they
would have prior to this proposed change. This proposed new Taker fee
structure is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
higher rebate for market participants who hit the new tier will provide
an incentive for market participants to attempt to execute more trades
on CBSX, which in turn will provide for greater volume and liquidity
for all CBSX market participants. The 85% Execution Rate threshold is
further equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it encourages
market participants who desire to reach this tier to send orders that
are likely to execute to CBSX and allow orders to rest on the CBSX Book
until such orders execute, both of which benefit all

market participants by providing available liquidity with which to
trade.
    Increasing the per-share and maximum fees for a cross trade that is
the stock component of a qualified contingent trade is reasonable
because the increases are minimal and within the range of other cross
trade fees assessed by CBSX, and is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the new per-share and maximum fees will be
assessed to all market participants equally. Adopting fees for two-day
settlement of cross trades is reasonable because the amount of the fees
are the same as those being assessed for next-day settlement, and is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the new two-day
settlement fees will be assessed to all market participants equally.

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

    CBOE 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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-060 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-CBOE-2012-060. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such 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-CBOE-2012-060 and should be submitted on
or before July 31, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16763 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23579-23581]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4238; Special Conditions No. 25-613-SC]

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-
G500 Airplanes; Airplane Electronic System Security Protection From
Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G500 airplane. These
airplanes will

have a digital-systems network architecture composed of several
connected networks that may allow access to or by external computer
systems and networks, and may result in airplane electronic system-
security vulnerabilities. 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: This action is effective on Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation on
April 22, 2016. We must receive your comments by June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4238
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     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.
     Hand Delivery or 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, 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), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    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 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: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the public comment process in several prior
instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore
finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite 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.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a
type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane.
    The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a business jet capable of
accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-
wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of
two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane
meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments
25-1 through 25-137.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 airplane because
of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    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, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model GVII-G500 airplane 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.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design feature: A digital-systems network architecture
composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and
network configuration will have the capability to allow access to or by
external network sources, and may be used for or interfaced with a
diverse set of functions, including:
     Flight-safety-related control, communication, and
navigation systems (airplane-control domain);
     Operator business and administrative support (operator-
information domain); and
     Passenger information and entertainment systems
(passenger-entertainment domain).

Discussion

    The Model GVII-G500 airplane's digital-systems network architecture
is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes as it allows
connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from
sources external to the airplane (e.g., operator networks, wireless
devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider satellite
communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the previously
isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic assets include
electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers,
software and electronic components, field-loadable software and
hardware applications, databases, etc. This proposed design may result
in network security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional
corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operation, and
maintenance of the airplane.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of digital-system architectures, nor access to airplane
systems. Furthermore,

14 CFR part 25, and current system-safety assessment policy and
techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities by
unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore,
these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security,
integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by
certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data
busses and networks.
    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.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined
that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable,
and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions 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 described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

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 electronic system-security protection
from unauthorized external access on the Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation Model GVII-G500 airplane.
    1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems
are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09335 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14272]
[DOCID:fr27mr07-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-311-001]

Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Gas Tariff Filing

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 19, 2007, Northern Border Pipeline
Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the
filing, to become effective April 1, 2007.
    Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to
substitute certain tariff sheets that Northern Border filed on February
27, 2007 at Docket No. RP07-311-000 to reflect a change in the name of
the operator of Northern Border to TransCanada Northern Border Inc.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5520 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65679-65680]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF13-1-000]

Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 18, 2012, the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested by sections
301(b), 302(a), 402(e), 641, 642, 643, and 644, of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and by Delegation Order Nos.
00-037.00 (December 6, 2001) and 00-001.00D (January 22, 2010),
confirmed, approved, and placed in effect on an interim basis in Rate
Order SWPA-64, Southwestern Power Administration annual rate for the
sale of power and energy from the Willis Project to the Sam Rayburn
Municipal Power Agency.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 23, 2012.

    Dated: October 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26593 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P