[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 51 (Friday, March 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14251-14256]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05345]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80230; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 515, Execution of
Orders and Quotes

March 13, 2017.
    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 3, 2017, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 515,
Execution of Orders and Quotes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site 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 purpose of the proposal is to amend Exchange Rule 515(c) to
enhance the price protection process of the Exchange's System.\3\ The
proposal will (i) eliminate a Member's \4\ ability to disable the price
protection process, (ii) refine the settings associated with the price
protection process, (iii) propose a new behavior of the price
protection process to remove certain orders immediately following the
commencement of a trading halt and at the end of each trading session,
and (iv) eliminate the establishment of a price protection limit for
orders received (A) prior to the open or during a trading halt, and (B)
during a prior trading session that remain on the Book \5\ at the
conclusion of the opening process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \4\ 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.
    \5\ The term ``Book'' means the electronic book of buy and sell
orders and quotes maintained by the System. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 503(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange provides a price protection process for all orders
(excluding Market Maker \7\ orders) as part of its commitment to
providing risk protection for Member's orders.\8\ The price protection
process prevents an order from being executed beyond the price
designated in the order's price

protection instructions (the ``price protection limit'').\9\ The
starting point for establishing an order's price protection limit is
the NBBO \10\ at the time the order is received by the System, or the
MBBO \11\ if the ABBO \12\ is crossing the MBBO at the time of receipt.
The Exchange refers to this value internally as the initial reference
price (``IRP''). The Member may determine the number of Minimum Price
Variations (``MPVs'') \13\ away from the IRP that it wants to use to
establish its price protection limit. If the order is a ``buy,'' some
number of Minimum Price Variations (``MPVs''), either as designated by
the Member or as defaulted by the Exchange, is added to the IRP to
establish the order's price protection limit. If the order is a
``sell,'' some number of MPVs, either as designated by the Member or
defaulted by the Exchange, is subtracted from the IRP to establish the
order's price protection limit. When an order's price protection limit
is triggered, the order (or the remaining contracts of an order) is
canceled by the System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 519 for additional order protections.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 515(c)(1).
    \10\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ The term ``MBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \12\ The term ``ABBO'' or ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' means the
best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by other Eligible Exchanges
(defined in Rule 1400(f)) and calculated by the Exchange based on
market information received by the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange
Rule 100.
    \13\ See Exchange Rule 510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 515(c)(1) provides that ``[m]arket participants may
designate or disable price protection instructions on an order by order
basis.'' In order to enhance the Exchange's price protection process,
the Exchange proposes to amend the Rule so that market participants no
longer have the option to disable price protection instructions on
orders. The Exchange believes that this enhancement benefits market
participants and the options market as a whole, as this will ensure
that all eligible orders have at least some level of price protection.
While this proposal effectively mandates usage of the price protection
process, the Exchange notes that market participants will still have
the ability to set price protection instructions a significant number
of MPVs away from the IRP (as discussed below) should they so elect,
therefore the Exchange does not view the proposal as a material or
significant change.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to enhance the price protection
process by refining the settings associated with this process.
Currently in the System, Members may disable price protection by
providing a value of -1 in the price protection instructions, or
Members may enable price protection by selecting an MPV value from a
range (in whole numbers only) of 0 through 99--that is, the number of
MPVs beyond the IRP that an order may trade. Providing Members with
such a wide range of MPV settings could render the price protection
process ineffective, should a Member select an MPV setting at the upper
end of that range. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to establish a
narrower range of MPV settings, and to insert the range into the Rule.
While this range will be determined by the Exchange and announced to
Members through a Regulatory Circular, the range will be (in whole
numbers only) no less than zero (0) MPVs and no greater than twenty
(20) MPVs away from the IRP.
    The Exchange also proposes to establish a range of MPV settings
from which the Exchange may select to serve as the default value for
price protection instructions, should a market participant not provide
its own price protection instructions for its order. The current Rule
states that this default price protection will be one MPV away from the
NBBO at the time of receipt, or the MBBO if the ABBO is crossing the
MBBO. The Exchange now proposes to establish a range of MPV settings
from one (1) to five (5) MPVs away from the NBBO at the time of
receipt. The Exchange will announce the default value for the price
protection instruction to Members through a Regulatory Circular, such
value shall be in whole numbers only and shall apply universally to all
products traded on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that having a
range of MPV settings to choose from will provide greater flexibility
to the Exchange and enable it to select an appropriate global default
MPV value where one is not provided by the market participant.
    Except as discussed below, orders can be received by the Exchange
either prior to or after completion of the opening process. Orders may
have a limit price (``limit orders'') \14\ or be priced to buy or sell
at the current market price (``market orders'').\15\ A market order
represents a willingness to buy or sell at the best price available at
the time of execution. A market order to buy could execute at the
maximum price permitted by the Exchange,\16\ whereas a market order to
sell could execute at the minimum price permitted by the Exchange, or
one (1) MPV above zero.\17\ When orders are received after the opening
process is complete and when the market is in a regular trading state,
the price protection process tethers the order's price to the current
NBBO, (or MBBO if the ABBO is crossing the MBBO at the time of
receipt), and provides protection (based on the number of MPVs supplied
by the Member or defaulted by the Exchange) for orders that are priced
through the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A limit order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of
option contracts at a specified price or better. See Exchange Rule
516.
    \15\ A market order is an order to buy or sell a stated number
of option contracts at the best price available at the time of
execution. See Exchange Rule 516.
    \16\ The Exchange notes that the maximum price that an order may
be executed at in the System is $1,999.99.
    \17\ A market order to sell could execute at $.01 in an option
class quoted and traded in increments as low as $.01; or at $.05 in
an option class quoted and traded in increments as low as $.05. See
Exchange Rule 510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limit Orders
    For purposes of this Rule 515(c), the Exchange is proposing to
consider the effective limit price of a limit order to be the limit
price of the order. Depending upon the NBBO at the time of receipt by
the System, and the order's price protection instructions, the order's
price protection limit can be considered either ``more aggressive''
(equal to or higher than the order's effective limit price for a buy
order or equal to or lower than the order's effective limit price for a
sell order) or ``less aggressive'' (lower than the order's effective
limit price for a buy order or higher than the order's effective limit
price for a sell order) than the order's effective limit price. When an
order's price protection limit is equal to or more aggressive than its
effective limit price, the order's effective price protection limit
will be the order's limit price, as an order will never trade through
its limit price on the Exchange.
Market Orders
    For purposes of evaluating market orders under the proposed price
protection process outlined in this Rule, the Exchange is proposing to
consider the effective limit price of a market order to buy to be the
maximum price currently permitted by the Exchange's System,\18\ and the
effective limit price for a market order to sell to be one (1) MPV
above zero ($.01 for options quoted and traded in increments as low as
$.01, or $.05 for options quoted and traded in increments as low as
$.05).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 16.
    \19\ See Exchange Rule 510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Depending upon the NBBO at the time of receipt by the System, and
the order's price protection instructions, the order's price protection
limit can either

be more aggressive (equal to or higher than the order's effective limit
price for a buy order or equal to or lower than the order's effective
limit price for a sell order) or less aggressive (lower than the
order's effective limit price for a buy order or higher than the
order's effective limit price for a sell order) than the order's
effective limit price.
    The price protection process will remain unchanged for orders
received after the opening process has been completed, when the market
is in a regular trading session. For both limit and market orders, when
an order's price protection limit is triggered, the order, or the
remaining contracts of the order, is canceled. Under the current rule,
this cancellation will only occur during regular trading and can
possibly result in an order not receiving an execution at the price
anticipated by the Member when the order was submitted, as a result of
a price protection limit that is less aggressive than the order's
effective limit price. Under the current rule, an order with a price
protection limit less aggressive than the order's effective limit price
will persist throughout the course of an entire trading day, including
through a trading halt, (provided the order's price protection limit
isn't triggered).
    The Exchange now proposes to evaluate orders at the conclusion of
each trading session (including after a trading halt as defined in Rule
504), to identify those orders that have a price protection limit that
is less aggressive than the order's effective limit price, in addition
to current functionality. The Exchange believes it is in the best
interest of its Members to proactively identify orders on the Book that
have a price protection limit that is less aggressive than the order's
effective limit price at the conclusion of each trading session when
the market is not in a regular trading state. Given that these orders
will never trade to their effective limit price, the Exchange proposes
to cancel these orders from the Book so that Members can benefit from
an increase in the amount of time available to re-evaluate the current
market conditions prior to resubmitting the order to the Exchange.
    The following examples demonstrate how the proposed process would
work for non-routable limit orders.

Option MPV = $.01
MBBO: $1.00 x $1.05
ABBO: $1.01 x $1.03
NBBO: $1.01 x $1.03
    Order #1 Received: Buy @$1.08 GTC, Price Protection MPVs: 2
1. Order is managed to the ABBO
2. Effective limit price: $1.08 (bid)
3. Display price: $1.02 (bid)
4. Book price: $1.03 (bid)
5. Price protection limit: $1.05 [(IRP + 2 MPVs) or ($1.03 + $.02)]
6. The order's price protection limit ($1.05) is less aggressive than
the order's effective limit price ($1.08)

    Order #2 Received: Buy @$1.04 GTC, Price Protection MPVs: 2

1. Order is Managed to the ABBO
2. Effective limit price: $1.04
3. Display price: $1.02 (bid)
4. Book price: $1.03 (bid)
5. Price protection limit: $1.05 [(IRP + 2 MPVs) or ($1.03 + $.02)]
6. The order's price protection limit ($1.05) is more aggressive than
the order's effective limit price ($1.04)

    The Market closes (or Halts as per Rule 504).
1. Order #1 is canceled as the order's price protection limit ($1.05)
is less aggressive than its effective limit price ($1.08). Under
proposed Interpretations and Policies .04, the System will cancel a buy
order when the order's price protection limit is lower than the order's
effective limit price.
2. Order #2 is maintained on the Book as the order's price protection
limit ($1.05) is more aggressive than its effective limit price
($1.04). Under proposed Interpretations and Policies .04, the System
will not cancel a buy order when the order's price protection limit is
higher than the order's effective limit price.

    The following examples demonstrate how the proposed process would
work for non-routable market orders.

Option MPV = $.01
MBBO: $1.00 x $1.05
ABBO: $1.01 x $1.03
NBBO: $1.01 x $1.03

    Order # 3 Received: Buy @the Market GTC, Price Protection MPVs: 2

1. Order is Managed to the ABBO
2. Effective limit price: $1,999.99 (Exchange Maximum)
3. Display price: $1.02 (bid)
4. Book price: $1.03 (bid)
5. Price protection limit: $1.05 [(IRP + 2 MPVs) or ($1.03 + $.02)]
6. The order's price protection limit ($1.05) is less aggressive than
the order's effective limit price ($1,999.99)
Option MPV = $.01
MBBO: $.00 x $.15
ABBO: $.05 x $.15
NBBO: $.05 x $.15

    Order #4 Received: Sell @the Market, Price Protection MPVs: 2

1. Order is managed to the ABBO
2. Effective limit price: $.01
3. Display price: $.06 (offer)
4. Book price: $.05 (offer)
5. Price protection limit: $.03 [(IRP-2 MPVs) or (.05-$.02)]
6. The order's price protection limit ($.03) is less aggressive than
the order's effective limit price ($.01)

    Order #5 Received: Sell @the Market, Price Protection MPVs: 4

1. Order is managed to the ABBO
2. Effective limit price: $.01
3. Display price: $.06 (offer)
4. Book price: $.05 (offer)
5. Price protection limit: $.01 [(IRP-4 MPVs) or ($.05-$.04)]
6. The order's price protection limit ($.01) is equal to the order's
effective limit price ($.01)

    The Market closes (or Halts as per Rule 504).

3. Order #3 is canceled as the order's price protection limit ($1.05)
is less aggressive than the orders effective limit price ($1,999.99).
Under proposed Interpretations and Policies .04, the System will cancel
a buy order when the order's price protection limit is lower than the
order's effective limit price.
 Order #4 is canceled as the order's price protection limit
($0.03) is less aggressive than its effective limit price ($0.01).
Under proposed Interpretations and Policies .04, the System will cancel
a sell order when the order's price protection limit is higher than the
order's effective limit price.
 Order #5 is maintained on the Book as the order's price
protection limit ($0.01) is equal to its effective limit price ($0.01).
Under proposed Interpretations and Policies .04, the System will not
cancel a sell order when the order's price protection limit is not
higher than the order's effective limit price.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to cancel orders at the end
of a trading session, when the order's price protection limit is less
aggressive than the order's effective limit price, will afford market
participants the opportunity to evaluate whether to re-submit their
orders and/or establish a different price and/or price protection
instructions, based on then-current market conditions, prior to the
opening of the next trading session. Given that the Exchange can
discern when an order may not fill at the price levels anticipated,
(based on an order having a price protection limit that is less
aggressive than the order's effective limit price), the Exchange
believes the most prudent course of action in these circumstances is to
return the order to the Member for analysis and evaluation, while the
market is not in a regular

trading state, (e.g., a Member submitting a non-routable market order
to sell in an option class quoting in $.01 increments, when the MBBO is
$0.00 x $0.15 and the NBBO is $0.05 x $0.15, could expect to sell at
every price increment down to $.01. However, if the Exchange default
price protection instruction is 2 MPVs, the order would receive a price
protection limit of $0.03. When the price protection limit is
triggered, the order, or the remaining contracts of the order, would be
canceled, and the order would not execute at $0.02 or $0.01).
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Interpretations
and Policies .04, to state that the System will cancel certain orders
from the Book immediately following the commencement of a trading halt
pursuant to Rule 504, and at the end of each trading session, when the
order's price protection limit is less aggressive than the order's
effective limit price. Interpretations and Policies .04 further states
that, for the purposes of this Rule, the effective limit price of a
limit order will be the order's limit price; the effective limit price
of a market order to buy, will be the maximum price currently permitted
by the Exchange; \20\ and the effective limit price of a market order
to sell, will be one (1) MPV as established by Rule 510, either $.01
for option classes quoted and traded in increments as low as $.01, or
$.05 for option classes quoted and traded in increments as low as $.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the establishment of a
price protection limit for orders that are received prior to the open
or during a trading halt and for orders that remain on the Book at the
conclusion of the opening process. Orders received prior to the opening
process or during a trading halt and orders carried over from a prior
trading session participate in the opening process. This is true today
under existing Exchange rules and is not changing under this proposal.
The Exchange has a single opening process that is used to open the
System for trading at the start of the day, and to reopen the System
for trading after an intraday halt.\21\ During the opening process, the
opening price serves as a price protection limit for all orders
participating in the opening, and orders that are priced through the
opening price are canceled at the conclusion of the opening
process.\22\ \23\ Following the opening process, the System currently
assigns a new IRP equal to the NBBO to any such orders that remain
unexecuted after the opening process is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Exchange Rule 503.
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 503(f)(2)(vii)(B)(5).
    \23\ The Exchange notes that market orders will never remain on
the book after the opening process concludes, as by definition these
orders will always be priced through the opening price and will be
filled to the extent possible and then conceled at the conclusion of
the opening process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the establishment of a price
protection limit for orders that have participated in the opening
process and that remain on the Book. As proposed, orders that are
received prior to the open or during a trading halt and orders from a
prior trading session that remain on the Book after the opening process
concludes, will be booked and managed at the order's limit price. An
order that is received prior to the open or during a trading halt and
that remains on the Book after the opening process concludes is not
priced through the opening price and may be booked and managed at its
limit price. The order's limit price serves as the most effective price
protection limit as an order will never trade through its limit price
on the Exchange.
    During a regular trading session, an order with a price protection
limit that is more aggressive than its limit price will either rest on
the Book or fill to its limit price and no further. An order with a
price protection limit that is less aggressive than its limit price
will either rest on the Book or fill to its price protection limit,
which once triggered will cancel the order, or the remaining contracts
of the order, which in all cases will be before the order has a chance
to trade to its limit price. As proposed, at the conclusion of each
trading session, the System will cancel orders with a price protection
limit that is less aggressive than the order's effective limit price.
Therefore, the only orders that will remain in the System from a prior
session to participate in the opening will be orders with a price
protection limit that is more aggressive than the order's effective
limit price. As previously discussed, limit orders with a price
protection limit more aggressive than the order's effective limit price
are managed to their limit price, as a limit order will never execute
through its limit price, and the price protection limit is not a factor
for these orders. Therefore, additional price protection is unnecessary
for orders that remain on the Book after participating in the opening
process as orders on the Exchange will never trade through their limit
price.
    The Exchange believes that the enhancements it is proposing to its
price protection process in the proposed rule change should assist
market participants in making informed decisions concerning trading
opportunities by clarifying the relationship between an order's limit
price, price protection limit, and the operation of the Exchange's
price protection process. The Exchange believes that the detailed
description of this functionality belongs in the Exchange's Rules in
order to inform market participants whose orders are being managed,
that such orders may be canceled by the Exchange under certain
circumstances, and the reasons therefore. The proposed rule change
should assist market participants in making decisions concerning price
limits and routing decisions. While this proposal effectively mandates
usage of the price protection process, the Exchange notes that market
participants will still have the ability to set price protection limits
at higher thresholds should they so elect, therefore the Exchange does
not view the proposal as a material or significant change.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in particular, 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. The system protections
described above are designed in the interest of protecting investors
and to assure fair and orderly markets on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange operates an electronic marketplace in
which orders are processed and executed in less than one second.
Without any safeguards, orders that outsize the liquidity available at
the displayed best bid or offer on the Exchange could potentially trade
at prices far below the best bid and far above the best offer, creating
extreme volatility in the marketplace and poor executions for
investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to enhance the
price protection process of the Exchange's System will protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that reducing
the number of price levels at which an incoming order can execute

appropriately balances the interests of investors seeking execution of
their orders and the Exchange's obligations to provide a fair and
orderly market. Further, the Exchange believes that defining the
minimum and maximum range of MPVs available to the Members within the
Rule promotes transparency and clarity in the Exchange's rules and
protects investors and the public interest.
    Additionally, the proposal provides the Exchange with a range of
values to select from when establishing a default price protection
limit, which provides greater flexibility for the Exchange to
adequately tailor its default setting to market conditions. Providing
default values will benefit market participants and the options market
as a whole as this will ensure that all eligible orders have a minimal
level of price protection. The proposal to eliminate a Member's ability
to disable the price protection process will facilitate transactions in
securities as Members will have greater confidence that protections are
in place that reduce the risk of executions at prices that are
significantly through the market. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that this benefits all market participants by ensuring that all
eligible orders have some level of price protection. As a result, the
enhancements to the price protection process promotes just and
equitable principles of trade. While this proposal effectively mandates
usage of the price protection process, the Exchange notes that market
participants will still have the ability to set price protection limits
at high thresholds should they so elect, therefore the Exchange does
not view the proposal as a material or significant change.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove orders with a
price protection limit less aggressive than the order's effective limit
price at the conclusion of a trading session (or after a trading halt
as defined in Rule 504) to be in the best interest of the investor as
these orders will never fill to their effective limit price. The price
protection process will cancel an order, or the remaining contracts of
an order, when the price protection limit is triggered during regular
trading. The Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors
for the Exchange to return an order with a price protection limit that
is less aggressive than the order's effective limit price to the
Member, while the market is not in regular trading, so that the Member
has more time to evaluate whether to re-submit the order and/or
establish a different price and/or different price protection
instructions, based on the then-current market conditions.
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
providing market participants with more time to evaluate their orders
which will promote fair and orderly markets, increase overall market
confidence, and promote the protection of investors.
    The Exchange believes that the elimination of a price protection
limit for orders that are received prior to the opening or during a
trading halt and for orders received during a prior trading session
that remain on the book following the Opening Process (other than the
price protection afforded by opening price) provides transparency and
clarity in the Exchange's rules. As noted above, the Exchange believes
that booking and posting these orders at their limit price provides the
same level of protection as the price protection process, as an order
will never trade through its limit price on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes it is in the interest of investors and the public to
accurately describe the behavior of the Exchange's System in its rules
as this information may be used by investors to make decisions
concerning the submission of their orders. Transparency and clarity are
consistent with the Act because it removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
accurately describing the behavior of the Exchange's System.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to add new Interpretations and
Policies .04 protects investors and the public interest by clearly
stating in the Exchange's rules the method by which the Exchange is
evaluating orders for removal by the System. Further, the Exchange
believes that providing the definition of effective limit price
provides clarity and transparency in the Exchange's rules.
Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to remove orders where the price
protection limit for a buy order is lower than the order's effective
limit price; and where the price protection limit for a sell order is
higher than the order's effective limit price, contributes to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market by returning orders that would
not fill to their effective limit price to the market participant for
re-evaluation while the market is not in a regular trading state.
Market participants can evaluate the current market conditions and
consider re-submitting their order with a new price and/or new price
protection instructions while the market is not active.
    The Exchange believes this proposal will provide MIAX participants
with a better understanding of the Exchange's price protection process.
The description of the System's functionality is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade by providing a clear and
accurate description to all participants of how the price protection
process is applied and should assist investors in making decisions
concerning their orders. Further, the Exchange believes that the price
protection process provides market participants with an appropriate
level of risk protection on their orders and contributes to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
    Additionally, the Exchange notes that it has an affiliate Exchange,
MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'') and that MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL
have similar rules.\26\ A substantially similar rule on MIAX PEARL
became operative when the Exchange commenced operations on February 6,
2017.\27\ Further, MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL also have a number of
common Members and on each Exchange, where feasible, the Exchange
intends to implement similar behavior to provide consistency between
the Exchanges so as to avoid confusion among Members. Aligning similar
rules on the Exchange and MIAX PEARL provides transparency and clarity
in the rules and minimizes the potential for confusion, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange notes that MIAX PEARL incorporates the
following Chapters of the MIAX Options Rule Book by reference:
Chapter III, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI.
    \27\ See MIAX PEARL Rule 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-
market competition because it applies to all MIAX participants equally.
In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the proposal is intended to
protect investors by providing further enhancements and transparency
regarding the Exchange's price protection functionality.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \29\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \30\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \31\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. In its filing
with the Commission, the Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange notes that the Exchange and MIAX
PEARL have common Members and the proposal will provide, where
feasible, consistent functionality between the Exchange and MIAX PEARL,
and thus reduce complexity and avoid potential confusion among Members.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR- MIAX-2017-12 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-2017-12. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-12 and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05345 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 76619-76620]
[DOCID:fr17de08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13215-000, Project No. 13216-000]

Calligan Power, LLC, Renewable Energy Development, LLC; Notice of
Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

December 9, 2008.
    Calligan Power, LLC , and Renewable Energy Development, LLC filed
applications, on May 1, 2008, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Hancock Project,
to be located on Hancock Creek, in King County, Washington.
    The proposed Hancock Project by Calligan Power, LLC consists of:
(1) A

proposed 60-foot-long, 8-foot-high weir diversion structure; (2) a
proposed reservoir having a surface area of 0.3 acres and a storage
capacity of 1 acre-foot and normal water surface elevation of 2170 feet
National Geographic Vertical Datum (NGVD); (3) a proposed 3,100-foot-
long, 36-inch-diameter steel penstock and 2,100-foot-long, 36-inch
diameter tunnel, (4) a proposed powerhouse containing one new
generating unity having an installed capacity of 6.6 megawatts; (5) a
proposed 9,300-foot-long, 34.5 kilovolt transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed Hancock Project would have an
average annual generation of 24 gigawatt-hours.
    The proposed Hancock Project by Renewable Energy Development, LLC
consists of: (1) A proposed 65-foot-long, 7-foot-high concrete
diversion structure; (2) a proposed reservoir having a surface area of
0.3 acres and a storage capacity of 1 acre-foot and normal water
surface elevation of 2171 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed 7,800-
foot-long, 40-inch-diameter steel penstock, (4) a proposed powerhouse
containing one new generating unity having an installed capacity of 7.4
megawatts; (5) an existing 9,500-foot-long, 34.5 kilovolt transmission
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Hancock Project
would have an average annual generation of 25 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicants Contact: For Calligan Power, LLC: Mr. Jason M. Hines,
Black Brook Environmental, Inc., 100 Harris Avenue, Bellingham, WA
98225,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For Renewable Energy Development, LLC: Laurin
Schweet, Renewable Energy Development, LLC, P.O. Box 50061, Bellevue,
WA 98015,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13215 or P-13216) in the docket number field to access the document.
For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-29857 Filed 12-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 35318]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4544-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4544-DR), dated May 8, 2020,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 8, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas due to damage resulting from severe storms, tornadoes,
and straight-line winds on March 28, 2020, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Roland Jackson, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

Craighead County for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Arkansas are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-12490 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42018-42020]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD;
Amendment 39-18208; AD 2015-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as the aileron trim tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet
altitude. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 20, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 20,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
1177; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD, Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland;
phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model
PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24854). The NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    During a continued airworthiness review, a potential unsafe
condition was identified that could result from a disconnected
aileron trim tab occurring above an altitude of 10.000 feet.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in case of a
disconnection of an aileron trim tab, to undamped aeroplane
vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus Aircraft
Ltd. issued SB No. 27-021 to provide instructions for replacement of
the aileron tab counter balance weight.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires replacement of
the aileron tab counter balance weight with a new, slightly heavier,
aileron tab counter balance weight.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1177-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request Revision of Paragraph (e) Reason of the AD

    Johan Kruger stated the sentence of paragraph (e) Reason in the
proposed AD was incomplete and misleading:

    We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnected aileron trim
tab, which could lead to undamped airplane vibrations, potentially
resulting in structural failure.

    Johan Kruger proposed replacing the above sentence with this
sentence similar to the MCAI:

    We are issuing this AD to prevent undamped airplane vibrations,
potentially resulting in structural failure in case of a
disconnected aileron trim tab.

    We agree with the commenter that the proposed sentence is
clarification of the unsafe condition. We have adopted the proposed
sentence in paragraph (e) of the AD.

Request Correction of Part Number (P/N)

    Johan Kruger stated the cited part number (P/N) <IP_ADDRESS> of the
aileron trim tab assembly quoted is wrong in paragraphs (f)(2) and
(f)(3) of the proposed AD; the correct P/N is 5<IP_ADDRESS>. We infer
that the commenter requested correction of the incorrect P/N.
    We agree with the commenter that the P/N in the proposed AD is
incorrect. We have changed the incorrect P/N to 5<IP_ADDRESS> in
paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the AD.

Request Correction of Misleading Wording in Paragraph (f)(4) of the AD

    Johan Kruger commented the wording in paragraph 2(f)(4) is
misleading, ``. . . provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS> is not installed on the airplane.''
    Johan Kruger further wrote that Pilatus proposed the wording be
changed to read, ``. . . provided that an

aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS> is not
installed on that aileron assembly.''
    We infer the commenter means paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.
    We agree with the commenter. Aileron trim tab assemblies will only
be associated with aileron assemblies and not by airplane. The aileron
assemblies themselves are associated with the airplane number. We have
adopted the proposed wording in paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Relative Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin
No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 303 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 5.5 work hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per
product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $444,652.50, or $1,467.50 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
1177; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2015-14-10 PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.: Amendment 39-18208; Docket No.
FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 20,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. model and
serial number airplanes, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model PC-12/47, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 684
through MSN 888; and
    (2) Model PC-12/47E, MSNs 545, and 1001 through 1520.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the aileron trim
tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet altitude. We are issuing this AD
to prevent undamped airplane vibrations, potentially resulting in
structural failure in case of a disconnected aileron trim tab.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For airplanes equipped with aileron trim tab assembly, part
number (P/N) 5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS>; or aileron assembly, P/
N 5<IP_ADDRESS>, 5<IP_ADDRESS>, 5<IP_ADDRESS>, or 5<IP_ADDRESS>:
Within 12 months after August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this
AD), replace the aileron tab counter balance weight and re-identify
the aileron trim tab assembly following the

instructions of PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated
January 20, 2015.
    (2) For airplanes that on August 20, 2015 (the effective date of
this AD) has an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> or
5<IP_ADDRESS>, installed: After modification of that airplane as
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install another
aileron trim tab assembly with P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS>.
    (3) For airplanes that on August 20, 2015 (the effective date of
this AD) does not have an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS>, installed: After August 20, 2015
(the effective date of this AD), do not install an aileron trim tab
assembly with P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS>.
    (4) For all airplanes: After August 20, 2015 (the effective date
of this AD), you are allowed to install on an airplane an aileron
assembly, having a P/N 5<IP_ADDRESS>, 5<IP_ADDRESS>, 5<IP_ADDRESS>,
or 5<IP_ADDRESS>, provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N
5<IP_ADDRESS> or 5<IP_ADDRESS> is not installed on that aileron
assembly.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2015-0060, dated April 10, 2015, for related information. The MCAI
can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1177-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-
021, dated January 20, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. service information identified in
this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD, Customer Support Manager, CH-
6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41
619 73 11; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http:/
/www.pilatus-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 7, 2015.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17200 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19185-19186]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0019; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-038-AD;
Amendment 39-18861; AD 2017-08-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GROB Aircraft AG Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GROB
Aircraft AG Models GROB G 109 and GROB G 109B gliders. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as broken pivots of the tail wheel mounting bracket resulting
from corrosion and damage due to wear. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0019; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact GROB
Aircraft AG, Product Support, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874
Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-998-105; fax:
+ 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: grob-aircraft.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-
2017-0019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to GROB Aircraft AG Models
GROB G 109 and GROB G 109B gliders. The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5456). The NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported of broken pivots of the tail wheel
mounting bracket. Subsequent investigation attributed these events
to corrosion and damage due to wear.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
loss of rudder control, resulting in reduced control of the powered
sailplane.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Grob Aircraft AG
issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 817-70 (hereafter referred
to as `the MSB' in this [EASA] AD) to provide inspection and repair
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections of the tail wheel mounting bracket and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
action(s).

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0019-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GROB Aircraft AG Service Bulletin No. MSB817-70, dated
September 28, 2016, which describes procedures for inspection of the
tail mounting bracket; and GROB Aircraft AG Repair Instruction RI 817-
015, dated September 16, 2016, which provides instructions for any
necessary repair. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section
of this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 57 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $17,385, or $305 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $100, for a cost of
$525 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0019; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2017-08-12 GROB Aircraft AG: Amendment 39-18861; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0019; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-038-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 31,
2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GROB Aircraft AG Models GROB G 109 and GROB G
109B gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as broken pivots of
the tail wheel mounting bracket resulting from corrosion and damage
due to wear. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct if
necessary any corrosion or damage to the tail wheel mounting
bracket, which could cause loss of rudder control and result in
reduced control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 3 months after May 31, 2017 (the effective
date of this AD) or 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 31,
2017 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, and
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 100 hours
TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the tail wheel
mounting bracket following the Accomplishment Instructions in
section 1.8 of GROB Aircraft AG Service Bulletin (SB) No. MSB817-70,
dated September 28, 2016.
    (2) If any damage is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair following
GROB Aircraft AG Repair Instruction RI 817-015, dated September 16,
2016.
    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(2) of this AD: The bolt in Figure 1,
Pos. 10 of GROB Aircraft AG Repair Instruction RI 817-015, dated
September 16, 2016, is welded into place onto the steel base plate.
Therefore, in order to facilitate the removal of the bolt, the
welding seams may be carefully ground off using caution to not
damage the steel base plate, instead of completely cutting off the
bolt head.
    (3) Repairs made as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD do
not qualify as terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0228, dated November 14, 2016, for related information. The
MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0019-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) GROB Aircraft AG Service Bulletin (SB) No. MSB817-70, dated
September 28, 2016.
    (ii) GROB Aircraft AG Repair Instruction RI 817-015, dated
September 16, 2016.
    (3) For GROB Aircraft AG service information identified in this
AD, contact GROB Aircraft AG, Product Support, Lettenbachstrasse 9,
D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-
998-105; fax: + 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: grob-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. In addition, you can access this service
information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0019.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 13, 2017.
Brian Yanez,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-07936 Filed 4-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24867]
[FR Doc No: E9-12164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1836-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1836-DR), dated May 8, 2009,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 8, 2009, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alabama resulting from severe storms, flooding, tornadoes, and
straight-line winds during the period of April 10-13, 2009, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Alabama.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later warranted, Federal funding
under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Cullman, DeKalb, Jackson, Jefferson, and Marshall Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12164 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6651-6653]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02972]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82657; File No. SR-OCC-2018-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Revise the Options Clearing Corporation's Schedule of Fees

February 8, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 29, 2018, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below. Items
I and II have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's Schedule of Fees
to introduce a cash management fee that would cover administrative and
other operational expenses incurred by OCC in connection with
maintaining cash deposits that are held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank
account and passing-through to Clearing Members the interest earned on
such deposits. The proposed changes to the Schedule of Fees can be
found in Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change. Material proposed to be
added to OCC's Fee Schedule as currently in effect is marked by
underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked by
strikethrough text; material proposed to be added to OCC's Fee Schedule
by proposed rule change SR-OCC-2018-004 is marked by double underlining
and material proposed to be deleted by proposed rule change SR-OCC-
2018-004 is marked by double strikethrough text. All capitalized terms
not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-
Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's
Schedule of Fees to introduce a cash management fee that would cover
administrative and other operational expenses incurred by OCC in
connection with maintaining cash deposits that are held in OCC's
Federal Reserve bank account and passing-through to Clearing Members
the interest earned on such deposits. The revised fee schedule would
become effective on March 1, 2018.
    By way of background, on January 12, 2018, Commission approved
changes to OCC's By-Laws and Rules that establish a new minimum cash
contribution requirement for OCC's Clearing Fund and provide for the
pass-through to OCC's Clearing Members of interest income earned on
cash Clearing Fund deposits held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank
account.\6\ As approved, the minimum cash contribution requirement will
require OCC's Clearing Members to collectively contribute $3 billion in
cash to OCC's Clearing Fund, with each Clearing Member's proportionate
share of the minimum cash requirement being equal in percentage to its
proportionate share of the Clearing Fund.\7\ In addition, OCC's
Executive Chairman, Chief Administrative Officer, or Chief Operating
Officer, upon providing notice to the Risk Committee of OCC's Board of
Directors, will have the ability, under certain limited circumstances,
to temporarily increase the amount of cash required to be maintained in
the Clearing Fund up to an amount that includes the size of the
Clearing Fund.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82502 (January
12, 2018), 82 FR 2825 (January 19, 2018) (SR-OCC-2017-019).
    \7\ Id. Each Clearing Member's proportionate share of the
Clearing Fund is determined by the Clearing Fund allocation
methodology in current Rule 1001.
    \8\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the minimum cash Clearing Fund requirement,
substantially all of OCC's Clearing Fund deposits consisting of cash
will be held in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account.\9\ OCC will pass
the interest income earned in such account through to its Clearing
Members, provided that each such Clearing Member has provided OCC with
all tax documentation as OCC may from time to time require in order to
effectuate such payment.\10\ Interest earned will be calculated daily
based on each Clearing Member's pro rata share of Clearing Fund cash
deposits.\11\ In maintaining these minimum cash balances in OCC's
Federal Reserve bank account and facilitating the pass-through of
interest earned on such balances, OCC will incur certain administrative
and other operational expenses. These expenses will include the
operation of the Federal Reserve bank account, certain systems
enhancements needed to maintain minimum cash deposits and facilitate
pass-through of interest earned, and staffing costs to operate the cash
management and funding desk. In order to defray these expenses, OCC is
proposing to implement a cash management fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6. OCC retains discretion to maintain a small
portion of Clearing Fund cash deposits in other accounts (e.g.,
accounts with commercial banks) for various reasons, including
facilitating normal substitution activity by its Clearing Members.
    \10\ See supra note 6. Interest earned will be calculated daily
based on each Clearing Member's pro rata share of Clearing Fund cash
deposits.
    \11\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed cash management fee would be an annual rate equal to 5
basis points (0.05%), calculated on a 365-day calendar, and billed
monthly on each Clearing Member's daily proportionate share of cash on
deposit in OCC's Federal Reserve bank account.\12\ This proposed change
is designed to provide OCC with a level of revenue sufficient to cover
OCC's administrative and operating expenses, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Accordingly, a Clearing Member can determine the monthly
amount of its cash management fee by (1) dividing the annual
interest rate by 365; (2) then multiplying the product by the
Clearing Member's proportionate share of cash on deposit in OCC's
Federal Reserve bank account for each calendar day in a given month;
and (3) taking the sum all of the products in step (2) for the given
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.\13\ The proposed
cash management fee would cover administrative and other operational
expenses incurred by OCC in connection with passing through to Clearing
Members the interest earned on Clearing Fund cash deposits that are
held in an account established by OCC at a Federal Reserve bank. OCC
believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because the new cash
management fee would be set at a level intended to cover OCC's expenses
associated with maintaining a minimum amount of Clearing Fund cash
(which requirement is designed to satisfy certain liquidity
requirements under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)) and with passing-through to
Clearing Members the interest earned on such deposits held in OCC's
Federal Reserve bank account. Moreover, OCC believes that the proposed
fee change would result in an equitable allocation of fees among its
participants because it is a fee that would be equally applicable to
all similarly situated participants (i.e., Clearing Members). As a
result, OCC believes that the proposed fee schedule provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees in accordance with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\14\ The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules
proposed to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \14\ 17 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).

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

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \15\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a
burden on competition. Although this proposed rule change affects
Clearing Members, their customers, and the markets that OCC serves, OCC
believes that the proposed rule change would not disadvantage or favor
any particular user of OCC's services in relationship to another user
because the proposed cash management fee would apply equally to all
Clearing Members. Accordingly, OCC does not believe that the proposed
rule change would have any impact or impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \17\ 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \18\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Rule 40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-OCC-2018-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2018-005. 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 OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
    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-OCC-2018-005 and
should be submitted on or before March 7, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02972 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19339]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-71-001; Docket No. PR11-72-001; Docket No. PR11-73-
001; Not Consolidated]

Southcross Gulf Coast Transmission Ltd.; Southcross Mississippi
Pipeline, L.P.; Southcross CCNG Transmission Ltd.; Notice of Baseline
Filings

    Take notice that on March 29, 2011, the applicants listed above
submitted a revised baseline filing of their Statement of Operating
Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion 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 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.

    Dated: April 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8300 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P