[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66803-66806]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28002]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84856; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Order Price Protection

December 19, 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 December 7, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Order Price Protection or
``OPP'' within The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (``NOM'') Rules at Chapter
VI, Section 18, entitled, ``Risk Protections.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VI,
Section 18, entitled, ``Risk Protections.'' Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend the Order Price Protection or ``OPP'' functionality
at Chapter VI, Section 18(a) to: (i) Propose an alternative method to
determine parameters for this risk protection; and (ii) memorialize
certain rule text within Chapter VI, Section 18. The Exchage [sic]
notes that OPP is intended to prevent erroneous executions of orders on
NOM. This proposal seeks to further this objective by introducting
[sic] a fixed dollar threshold that in combination with the existing
percentage threshold will provide a modified approach to order
rejection based on the price of the order.
Background
    Today, the OPP feature prevents certain day limit, good til
cancelled or immediate or cancel orders at prices outside of certain
pre-set limits from being accepted by the System. OPP applies market-
wide to all options, but does not apply to market orders or Intermarket
Sweep Orders. OPP is operational each trading day after the opening
until the close of trading, except during trading halts.\3\ The OPP
assists Participants in controlling risk by checking each order, before
it is accepted into the System, against certain parameters. Today, OPP
rejects incoming orders that exceed certain parameters according to the
following algorithm:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chapter VI, Section 18(a)(1).

    (i) If the better of the NBBO or the internal market BBO (the
``Reference BBO'') on the contra-side of an incoming order is
greater than $1.00, orders with a limit more than 50% through such
contra-side Reference BBO will be rejected by the System upon
receipt.
    (ii) If the Reference BBO on the contra-side of an incoming
order is less than or equal to $1.00, orders with a limit more than
100% through such contra-side Reference BBO will be rejected by the
System upon receipt.

    Today, NOM offers price improving orders \4\ to market participants
for submitting orders in increments smaller than the minimum price
variation (``MPV'') and as small as one cent. Price Improving Orders
are displayed on The Options Price Report Authority (``OPRA'') as part
of volume at the MPV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Price Improving Orders are orders to buy or sell an option
at a specified price at an increment smaller than the minimum price
variation in the security. Price Improving Orders may be entered in
increments as small as one cent. Price Improving Orders that are
available for display shall be displayed at the minimum price
variation in that security and shall be rounded up for sell orders
and rounded down for buy orders. See NOM Rules at Chapter VI,
Section 1(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Method
    The Exchange proposes to expand the algorithm for OPP to permit an
alternative to the percentage specified within the current rule. The
proposal is similar to Nasdaq ISE, LLC's Limit Order Price Protection
feature.\5\ The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section
18(1)(B)(i) to provide that OPP will reject incoming orders that exceed
certain parameters according to the following algorithm:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') provides a Limit Order Price
Protection feature at Rule 714(b)(1)(A). This risk protection limits
the amount by which incoming limit orders to buy may be priced above
the Exchange's best offer and by which incoming limit orders to sell
may be priced below the Exchange's best bid. Limit orders that
exceed the pricing limit are rejected. The limit is established by
the Exchange from time-to-time for orders to buy (sell) as the
greater of the Exchange's best offer (bid) plus (minus): (i) An
absolute amount not to exceed $2.00, or (ii) a percentage of the
Exchange's best bid/offer not to exceed 10%. Limit Order Price
Protection shall not apply to the Opening Process or during a
trading halt.

    (i) If the better of the NBBO or the internal market BBO (the
``Reference BBO'') on the contra-side of an incoming order is
greater than $1.00, orders with a limit more than the greater of the
below will cause the order to be rejected by the System upon
receipt.
    (A) 50% through such contra-side Reference BBO; or
    (B) a configurable dollar amount not to exceed $1.00 through
such contra-side Reference BBO as specified by the Exchange
announced via an Options Trader Alert.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 18(1)(B)(ii) to
provide that OPP will reject incoming orders that exceed certain
parameters according to the following algorithm:

    (ii) If the Reference BBO on the contra-side of an incoming
order is less than or equal to $1.00, orders with a limit more than
the greater of the below will cause the order to be rejected by the
System upon receipt.
    (A) 100% through such contra-side Reference BBO; or
    (B) a configurable dollar amount not to exceed $1.00 through
such contra-side Reference BBO as specified by the Exchange
announced via an Options Trader Alert.

    Today, orders are rejected if they exceed the percentage threshold
and in some cases the percentages may be too restrictive. The proposed
alternative would permit for a range of prices to be executed where the
incoming order is up to $1.00 from the Reference BBO. The Exchange
believes that utilizing the greater of a fixed dollar amount
alternative or percentage would expand the applicability of OPP while
still providing a reasonable limit to the range where orders will be
accepted. By implementing a functionality which applies the greater of
(i) a fixed dollar amount not to exceed $1.00; or (ii) a percentage,
the Exchange would ensure that this protection would be able to
accommodate all orders based on a determination of how far from the
Reference BBO the order is priced. The application of OPP would
continue to be market-wide. This proposal permits the Exchange to
consider the price of the order to determine the appropriate threshold
with which to apply OPP.
    The Exchange notes that ISE's Limit Order Price Protection feature
combines a percentage and fixed dollar threshold, similar to NOM's
proposal. The Exchange notes that certain securities in lower price
ranges would not benefit from the application of a percentage as would
securities with higher prices. For example, the application of a 50%
threshold to a $50 security would provide a rejection if a limit order
was priced $75 or greater compared to a 100% threshold for a $0.02
security which would be rejected a limit order priced $0.04 or greater.
    Today, the Exchange notes that certain orders, such as the price
improving orders noted previously, are rejected because a 100%
percentage is applied to the contra-side of an incoming order that is
less than $1.00. A rejection occurs in cases where the order is not
erroneously priced. Below are some additional examples utilizing the
proposed rule:

Example 2: An option priced less than $1.00

    For a penny MPV option with a BBO on NOM of $0.01 x $0.02, consider
that the configurable dollar amount is set to $0.05.
    Current Rule: Reject buy orders of more than $0.04 bid if incoming
order was less than $1.00, and it was more than 100% through the
contra-side of the Reference BBO.
    Proposed Rule: A buy order priced up to $0.07 ($0.02 offer + $0.05
configuration) would not be rejected because a configurable dollar
amount from $0.00 to $0.05 would allow the order to be entered into the
System for execution.
    This order was marketable upon entry and was not priced far from
the current bid. The Exchange believes in this example, the order
should be permitted to trade instead of being rejected.

Example 3: An option priced greater than $1.00

    For a penny MPV option with a BBO on NOM of $1.01 x $1.02, consider
that the configurable dollar amount is set to $0.60.
    Current Rule: Reject buy orders 50% through $1.02--orders priced
greater than $1.53 ($1.02 + $0.51).
    Proposed Rule: Reject buy orders priced greater than $1.62-$0.60
through 1.02 (this would be greater than 50% through 1.02).
    This order was marketable upon entry and was not priced far from
the current bid. The Exchange believes in this example, the order
should be permitted to trade instead of being rejected.

Example No. 4: Price Improving Order \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that this particular scenario is not very
frequent, but may occur on NOM because of the price improving order
type.

    Today, assume a NOM Participant enters a $.01 offer in an issue
that is a $0.05 MPV.
    The NOM Order Book would be $0 x $.01 and would be displayed on
OPRA as $0 x $.05.
    Current Rule: Reject Buy orders 100% through $0.01--orders priced
greater than $0.02 ($0.01 + $0.01)
    Proposed Rule: Reject buy orders priced greater than $0.06-$0.05
through $0.01 (this would be greater than 100% through $0.01).
    If a buyer submits a $0.05 order, OPP checks the order against the
NOM Order Book and assuming a configurable amount of $0.05, this order
would not reject the the $.05 bid utilizing the proposed fixed dollar
parameter.
    The desire for this alternative arose specifically in the case
where the contra-side of an incoming order is less than $1.00, but the
Exchange believes that an incoming order priced more than $1.00 could
also benefit by this alternative method because the fixed amount
provides for additional executions in certain situations where a
percentage would reject an order which was intentional and not
erroneous, as displayed in the examples above. The Exchange
specifically selected a limit of $1.00 because within that range, $1.00
from the Reference BBO, applying a percentage may cause the System to
reject a greater number of orders than the Exchange intended. Also, the
$1.00 equates to 100% through the $1.00 threshold that exists today for
OPP. The configurable dollar amount would provide more granularity to
the application of OPP to permit a larger range of orders to execute.
The Exchange believes that this approach will accomplish the goal of
limiting erroneous executions while permitting intentional executions
at reasonable prices.
    The Exchange would continue to analyze trading behavior and its
experience with OPP to determine the configurable amount not to exceed
$1.00. The Exchange would post the configurable amount on its website
and announce any changes to the configurable amount in an Options
Trader Alert. The Exchange notes that it typically has not changed its
configurable amounts over the years with respect to its risk
protections. The Exchange researches market behavior to determine the
amount in setting risk thresholds, in this case for rejection of
orders. The Exchange notifies market participants of the thresholds.
The Exchange would revisit its proposed OPP threshold if there was a
change in behavior of OPP rejections or in response to market
participant feedback regarding the behavior of a risk protection.
Memorialization of Rule Text
    A prior rule change \7\ specified that the Exchange is permitted to
temporarily deactivate OPP from time to time on an intraday basis at
its discretion if it determined that volatility warranted deactivation.
Participants would be notified of intraday OPP deactivation due to
volatility and any subsequent intraday reactivation by the Exchange
through the issuance of System status messages. The Exchange proposes
to memorialize the Exchange's discretion within NOM Rules at Chapter
VI, Section 18(a)(1)(A) by adding the following rule text, ``OPP may be

temporarily deactivated on an intra-day basis at the Exchange's
discretion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64312 (April 20,
2011), 76 FR 23351 (April 26, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-053) (``2011
Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change prior to March
2019. The Exchange will announce the date of implementation via an
Options Traders Alert.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by adopting an alternative configurable dollar amount standard, not to
exceed $1.00, which would allow NOM to establish appropriate boundaries
for rejecting potentially erroneous orders while continuing to allow
Participants to access liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Method
    OPP is intended to prevent orders which were clearly erroneous from
executing within the System to the detriment of market participants.
OPP was not intended to reject legitimate orders which are otherwise
capable of execution at a fair price. The Exchange's proposal would
allow the Exchange to establish a fixed dollar amount in addition to a
percentage threshold, similar to ISE,\10\ which would continue to
protect investors and the public interest against erroneous executions
while also allowing orders to execute where appropriate at a more
granular level where the incoming order is $1.00 from the Reference
BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 5 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because today NOM offers price improving orders \11\ to market
participants for submitting orders in increments smaller than the MPV
and as small as one cent, OPP orders which rely on the Reference BBO on
the NOM Order Book are rejected because in some cases the price
improving order appears greater than than [sic] 100% through the
contra-side Reference BBO of $.01.\12\ The Exchange believes that it is
consistent with the Act in this case because the order was not entered
at an erroneous price. The Exchange proposes an alternative to utilize
a second method to determine the rejection of orders in addition to the
current OPP methodology for rejecting orders. The Exchange believes
that by implementing a functionality which applies the greater of (i) a
fixed dollar amount not to exceed $1.00; or (ii) a percentage, the
Exchange would ensure that this protection would be able to accommodate
all orders based on a determination of how far from the Reference BBO
the order is priced. The application of OPP would continue to be
market-wide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 4 above.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that this particular scenario is not
very frequent, but may occur on NOM because of the price improving
order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act
because the fixed amount provides for a larger range of executions
within the $1.00 variance which would otherwise be rejected by the
application of a percentage which would not capture the potential
incremental executions. Orders would be rejected which were intentional
and not erroneous. The Exchange specifically selected a limit of $1.00
because within that range, $1.00 from the Reference BBO, applying a
percentage may reject a greater number of orders than is intended. The
Exchange notes that options which are at or near the money with regard
to the strike and the price of the underlying stock are typically
priced in a range between $0.0-$2.00.\13\ The Exchange would provide
market participants with greater flexilibity [sic] to enter orders
priced near in-the-money ranges. The Exchange will continue to analyze
trading behavior and its experience with OPP to determine the
configurable amount not to exceed $1.00. The Exchange would post the
configurable amount on its website and announce any changes to the
configurable amount in an Options Trader Alert. The configurable dollar
amount would provide more granularity to the application of OPP to
permit a larger range of orders to execute. The Exchange believes that
this approach will accomplish the goal of limiting erroneous executions
while permitting intentional executions at reasonable prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ By way of example, with the current OPP methodology an
option priced at $1.90 would be rejected for order priced greater
than $2.85. Whereas the threshold would allow an order priced at
$2.90 to be submitted to the System for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorialization of Rule Text
    The Exchange's proposal to memorialize rule text which was
described in the 2011 Rule Change \14\ relating to discretion to
deactivate OPP on an intraday basis would bring greater transparency to
the ability of the Exchange to exercise this discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See note 7 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not impose an
intra-market burden on competition because this mandatory risk
protection applies to all Participants who submit orders into NOM. The
Exchange would reject all incoming orders that exceed certain
parameters uniformly for all Participants. The proposal does not impose
an inter-market burden on competition because today other markets offer
similar protections to avoid erroneous executions on their markets.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ISE 714(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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-NASDAQ-2018-102 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-102. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2018-102 and should be submitted
on or before January 17, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28002 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64936-64939]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20304]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98385; File No. SR-BOX-2023-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule for Trading on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Amend
Certain Qualification Thresholds of Section IV.A.1 (Tiered Volume
Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions)

September 14, 2023.
    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 September 1, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal 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. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend certain qualification thresholds of Section IV.A.1, (Tiered
Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions) on the BOX Options Market
LLC (``BOX'') options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to amend certain qualification thresholds of Section IV.A.1, (Tiered
Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions).
    Currently, Public Customers \5\ receive a per contract rebate for
Electronic Non-Auction Transactions according to the Tier achieved by
the Public Customer as provided in the Percentage Thresholds of
National Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Options Classes table in
Section IV.A.1 of the BOX Fee Schedule. Percentage thresholds are
calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Public Customer's
executed Auction and Non-Auction transaction volume on BOX, relative to
the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that Public Customers do not initiate
transactions on BOX directly. BOX Participants initiate electronic
Non-Auction Transactions on behalf of Public Customers and these BOX
Participants are assessed fees or provided rebates by the Exchange
for such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Non-Auction Transactions where a Public
Customer order interacts with another Public Customer order are exempt
from a per contract rebate. However, these transactions still count
toward the Public Customer's monthly volume on BOX. The current
thresholds and rebates are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebate
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Percentage thresholds of national   Penny Interval Classes      Non-Penny Interval                SPY
                 Tier                   customer volume in multiply-listed --------------------------          Classes         -------------------------
                                            options classes  (monthly)                               --------------------------
                                                                               Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  0.000%-0.129%.....................        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
2.....................................  0.130%-0.339%.....................       (0.05)       (0.15)       (0.15)       (0.27)       (0.05)         0.00
3.....................................  0.340%-0.549%.....................       (0.10)       (0.20)       (0.30)       (0.32)       (0.10)         0.00
4.....................................  0.550% and Above..................       (0.27)       (0.27)       (0.60)       (0.40)       (0.27)         0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to raise the percentage thresholds within
the Percentage Thresholds of National Customer Volume in Multiply-
Listed Options Classes table. The proposed rebate structure is as
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebate
                                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Percentage thresholds of national   Penny Interval Classes      Non-Penny Interval                SPY
                 Tier                   customer volume in multiply-listed --------------------------          Classes         -------------------------
                                             options classes (monthly)                               --------------------------
                                                                               Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  0.000%-0.249%.....................        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
2.....................................  0.250%-0.499%.....................       (0.05)       (0.15)       (0.15)       (0.27)       (0.05)         0.00
3.....................................  0.500%-0.749%.....................       (0.10)       (0.20)       (0.30)       (0.32)       (0.10)         0.00
4.....................................  0.750% and Above..................       (0.27)       (0.27)       (0.60)       (0.40)       (0.27)         0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the percentage thresholds in Tiers 1
through 4 will be adjusted, however the rebate amounts will not change.
For example, the Tier 2 rebates remain at $0.05 for Makers in Penny
Interval Classes and $0.15 for Takers in Penny Interval Classes, but
will require 0.250%-0.499% of national customer volume in multiply-
listed options classes for Public Customers to qualify for the rebate.
Similarly, the Tier 3 rebates remain at $0.10 for Makers in Penny
Interval Classes and $0.20 for Takers in Penny Interval Classes, and
the Tier 4 rebates in Penny Interval Classes remain at $0.27 but the
thresholds required to qualify for those rebates will be 0.500%-0.749%
and 0.750% and above of national customer volume in multiply-listed
options classes, respectively.
    Although, the new volume thresholds will require greater volumes to
qualify for such rebates, the Exchange believes that Public Customers
will still benefit from the opportunity to obtain a rebate for their
transactions.\6\ The Exchange recently reviewed its Tiered Volume
Rebate structure for Non-Auction Transactions and determined that
raising the percentage thresholds is appropriate at this time. The
Exchange has not modified these volume thresholds since November of
2015 \7\ and the current rebate amounts have been in place since June
of 2018.\8\ Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed volume
tiers remain competitive with other exchanges \9\ and notes that Public
Customers may receive a rebate and will continue to pay no fees

for Electronic Non-Auction transactions on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that BOX Participants collect rebates on
behalf of Public Customers and have independent fee arrangements
with such Public Customers by which rebates provided by BOX would be
taken into account.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76447 (November 16,
2015), 80 FR 72758 (November 20, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-36).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83396 (June 8,
2018), 83 FR 27807 (June 14, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-21).
    \9\ See infra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to adjust certain percentage thresholds in the volume-
based thresholds for Public Customers in Electronic Non-Auction
Transactions. The volume-based thresholds and applicable rebates are
designed to incentivize Public Customers to direct order flow to the
Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn
benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the
Exchange. While the Exchange proposes to increase the volume
thresholds, thus requiring greater volumes to qualify for rebates, the
Exchange believes that Public Customers will still benefit from the
opportunity to obtain a rebate. The Exchange notes that other exchanges
employ similar incentive programs; and the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes to the volume based rebate thresholds are reasonable
and competitive when compared to incentive structures at other
exchanges.\11\ In particular, Nasdaq PHLX's Customer Rebate Program has
five tiers where Tier 1 is 0.00%-0.60% and Tier 5 is above 2.50% of
national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and Exchange-Traded
Fund (``ETF'') options with rebates that range from $0.00 to $0.21.\12\
Additionally, CBOE's Volume Incentive Program has five tiers where Tier
1 is 0%-0.75% and Tier 5 is above 4.00% of national customer volume in
all underlying symbols excluding certain index symbols, Nanos, and FLEX
Micros with rebates that range from $0.00 to $0.15.\13\ The Exchange is
proposing four tiers where Tier 1 is 0.000%-0.249% and Tier 4 is 0.750%
and above with rebates that range from $0.00 to $0.27 for Penny
Interval Classes. Thus, the Exchange believes that comparable rebates
can still be attained on BOX, under the Exchange's proposed thresholds,
at lower volumes than on CBOE or Nasdaq PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Nasdaq PHLX'') Options 7, Section 2
(Customer Rebate Program) and Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') Fee
Schedule (Volume Incentive Program). The Exchange notes that these
programs use different tier structures, volume calculations, and
rebate amounts, however, their rebate programs operate similarly to
BOX's.
    \12\ These rebates are referred to in Nasdaq PHLX Options 7,
Section 2 as Category A rebates. The Exchange believes that Category
A rebates and the volume used to determine which tiers are attained
are comparable to BOX's Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction
Transactions (Percentage Thresholds of National Customer Volume in
Multiply-Listed Options Classes) with the exception that Nasdaq PHLX
excludes volume associated with electronic QCC Orders. The Exchange
also notes that SPY is rebated under Nasdaq PHLX Options 7, Section
3.
    \13\ These rebates are for simple, Non-AIM transactions in the
CBOE Fee Schedule, VIP. The Exchange believes that simple, Non-AIM
transactions and the volume used to determine which tiers are
attained are comparable to BOX's Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-
Auction Transactions (Percentage Thresholds of National Customer
Volume in Multiply-Listed Options Classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4 are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they are available to all
BOX Participants that initiate electronic Non-Auction Transactions on
the behalf of Public Customers, and Participants may choose whether or
not to take advantage of the percentage thresholds and their applicable
rebates on BOX.
    The Exchange continues to believe it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to have these rebate structures for Public Customers in
Electronic Non-Auction Transactions. The securities markets generally,
and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for
investors and develop various features within the market structure for
Public Customer benefit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
providing a rebate structure for Public Customers is appropriate and
not unfairly discriminatory. Based on its review of competitor
exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebate thresholds,
although more difficult to obtain, will not disincentivize BOX
Participants from sending Public Customer order flow to BOX. Rather,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rebates will continue to help
attract a high level of Public Customer order flow to the BOX Book and
create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit
all Participants trading on BOX.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that amending the proposed rebate structure
for Public Customer Electronic Non-Auction Transactions will not impose
a burden on competition among various Participants. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes will result in Public Customers
being rebated appropriately for these transactions. The Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing exchanges. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and
rebates in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee or rebate changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited. The Exchange notes that other
exchanges provide programs to incentivize customer order flow and that
the proposed changes to the volume thresholds remain competitive when
compared to incentive structures at other exchanges.\14\ For the
reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change reflects this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\16\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-BOX-2023-23 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-BOX-2023-23. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-BOX-2023-23 and should be
submitted on or before October 11, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20304 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 35871-35872]
[DOCID:fr21jy09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-F-0303]

Ajinomoto Co., Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that
Ajinomoto Co., Inc., has filed a petition proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of N-[N-[3-
(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) propyl-[alpha]-aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine 1-
methyl ester, monohydrate (CAS Reg. No. 714229-20-6) for use as a non-
nutritive sweetener in tabletop applications and powdered beverage
mixes. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., also proposes that this additive be
identified as advantame.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the petitioner's

environmental assessment by August 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Blondell Anderson, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food
additive petition (FAP 9A4778) has been filed by Ajinomoto Co., Inc.,
c/o Ajinomoto Corporate Services LLC, 1120 Connecticut Ave. NW., suite
1010, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposes to amend the food
additive regulations in part 172 Food Additives Permitted For Direct
Addition to Food for Human Consumption (21 CFR part 172) to provide for
the safe use of N-[N-[3-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) propyl-[alpha]-
aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine 1-methyl ester, monohydrate (CAS Reg. No.
714229-20-6) for use as a non-nutritive sweetener in tabletop
applications and powdered beverage mixes.
    The potential environmental impact of this petition is being
reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations
issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)),
the agency is placing the environmental assessment submitted with the
petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the
Division of Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public
review and comment.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. FDA will also place on public display any amendments
to, or comments on, the petitioner's environmental assessment without
further announcement in the Federal Register. If, based on its review,
the agency finds that an environmental impact statement is not
required, and this petition results in a regulation, the notice of
availability of the agency's finding of no significant impact and the
evidence supporting that finding will be published with the regulation
in the Federal Register in accordance with 21 CFR 25.51(b).

    Dated: July 10, 2009.
Laura M. Tarantino,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. E9-17250 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5733-5734]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2011-1407; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-25
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-62;
Northeast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify area navigation (RNAV) route Q-
62 by extending it further west and incorporating two additional
navigation fixes. The route extension is proposed to link two RNAV
Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) serving the Chicago O'Hare
International Airport, IL, terminal area with the high altitude route.
The FAA is taking this action to increase National Airspace System
(NAS) efficiency and enhance flight safety as aircraft transition from
the en route airway structure to the terminal area airspace phase of
flight.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
1407 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-25 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-1407 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-25) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-1407 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-25.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX
76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by extending high altitude RNAV route Q-62
to the west to include the WATSN and DAIFE fixes. The proposed change
would facilitate linking the WATSN and HALIE RNAV STARs serving Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, IL, with the high altitude route and
establish a seamless transition for westbound air traffic from the New
York metropolitan area into the Chicago O'Hare International Airport,
IL, terminal area. This proposed route extension would also reduce ATC
system complexity, air traffic controller and pilot workload, and voice
communication requirements, as well as

reduce aircraft fuel consumption and expand the use of RNAV within the
NAS.
    High altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA
Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, Dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-62 WATSN, IN to SARAA, PA [Amended]
WATSN, IN                          FIX                    (Lat. 41[deg]17'00'' N., long. 86[deg]02'07'' W.)
DAIFE, IN                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]16'08'' N., long. 85[deg]51'19'' W.)
NOLNN, OH                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]14'04'' N., long. 84[deg]38'12'' W.)
WEEVR, OH                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]13'21'' N., long. 84[deg]13'04'' W.)
PSKUR, OH                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]09'16'' N., long. 82[deg]42'57'' W.)
FAALS, OH                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]02'51'' N., long. 80[deg]52'40'' W.)
ALEEE, OH                          WP                     (Lat. 41[deg]00'28'' N., long. 80[deg]31'54'' W.)
QUARM, PA                          WP                     (Lat. 40[deg]49'45'' N., long. 79[deg]04'39'' W.)
BURNI, PA                          FIX                    (Lat. 40[deg]39'25'' N., long. 77[deg]48'14'' W.)
MCMAN, PA                          FIX                    (Lat. 40[deg]38'16'' N., long. 77[deg]34'14'' W.)
VALLO, PA                          FIX                    (Lat. 40[deg]37'37'' N., long. 77[deg]26'18'' W.)
Ravine, PA (RAV)                   VORTAC                 (Lat. 40[deg]33'12'' N., long. 76[deg]35'58'' W.)
SUZIE, PA                          FIX                    (Lat. 40[deg]27'12'' N., long. 75[deg]58'22'' W.)
SARAA, PA                          FIX                    (Lat. 40[deg]26'22'' N., long. 75[deg]53'16'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-2483 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20960-20961]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69281]

Order Temporarily Exempting Certain Broker-Dealers From the
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Monitoring Requirements of Rule 13h-1
Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

April 3, 2013.
    On July 27, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') adopted Rule 13h-1 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') concerning large trader reporting to assist
the Commission in both identifying, and obtaining trade information
for, market participants that conduct a substantial amount of trading
activity, as measured by volume or market value, in U.S. securities
(such persons are referred to as ``large traders'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64976 (July 27,
2011), 76 FR 46960 (Aug. 3, 2011) (``Rule 13h-1 Adopting Release'').
The effective date of Rule 13h-1 was October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to requiring large traders to register with the
Commission by filing and periodically updating Form 13H, Rule 13h-1
requires certain broker-dealers to, among other things, maintain
specified records of transactions that they effect, directly or
indirectly, for large traders, and to report to the Commission, upon
request of the Commission, such records in electronic format.
    Initially, the compliance date for the broker-dealer recordkeeping
and reporting requirements of Rule 13h-1(d) and (e), respectively, as
well as the requirement under Rule 13h-1(f) for broker-dealers to
monitor their customers' accounts for activity that may trigger the
large trader identification requirements of Rule 13h-1, was April 30,
2012. The Financial Information Forum (``FIF'') \2\ and the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'') \3\ previously
requested that the Commission grant certain substantive relief and
temporarily exempt registered broker-dealers from the recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring requirements of the Rule to provide them with
additional time to comply.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letter from Manisha Kimmel, Executive Director,
Financial Information Forum, to Robert Cook, Director, and David
Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, dated January 25, 2012 (``FIF Letter''), available at:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-10/s71010.shtml.
    \3\ See Letter from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to David S. Shillman, Associate
Director, Division, Commission, dated March 29, 2012, available at:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-10/s71010.shtml.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66839 (April 20,
2012), 77 FR 25007 (April 26, 2012) (``April Exemptive Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange Act Section 13(h)(6) and Rule 13h-1(g)
thereunder,\5\ the Commission, by order, may exempt from the provisions
of Rule 13h-1, upon specified terms and conditions or for stated
periods, any person or class of persons or any transaction or class of
transactions from the provisions of Rule 13h-1 to the extent that such
exemption is consistent with the purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78m(h)(6) and 17 CFR 240.13h-1(g),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to FIF's and SIFMA's requests, the Commission
temporarily exempted broker-dealers from the recordkeeping, reporting,
and monitoring requirements, thereby establishing a two-phased approach
to implementation.\6\ In the first phase, the Commission provided a
temporary exemption to extend the compliance date from April 30, 2012
to November 30, 2012 for the broker-dealer recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of Rule 13h-1 with respect to a clearing broker-dealer for
a large trader where the large trader: (1) Is a U.S.-registered broker-
dealer,\7\ or (2) trades through a sponsored access arrangement \8\
(``Phase One''). In the

second phase, which concerned the remaining portions of the rule, the
Commission provided a temporary exemption to extend the compliance date
for the additional broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring requirements of Rule 13h-1 from April 30, 2012, to May 1,
2013 (``Phase Two'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The April Exemptive Order also provided an exemption for
certain transactions from the definition of the term ``transaction''
provided in Rule 13h-1(a)(6) for the purpose of determining whether
a person is a large trader. See April Exemptive Order, supra note 4.
    \7\ The reportable activity would include proprietary trading by
a large trader broker-dealer where the large trader is trading for
its own account.
    \8\ A ``sponsored access arrangement'' in this context refers to
an arrangement in which a broker-dealer permits a large trader
customer to enter orders directly to a trading center where such
orders are not processed through the broker-dealer's own trading
system (other than any risk management controls established for
purposes of compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act) and
where the orders are routed directly to a trading center, in some
cases supported by a service bureau or other third party technology
provider. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63241 (November 3,
2010), 75 FR 69792 (November 15, 2010) (S7-03-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Phase One fully implemented, the Commission now is focusing
its attention on FIF's and SIFMA's relief requests concerning Phase
Two. On February 13, 2013, SIFMA submitted a supplemental letter that
outlined its members' experience in implementing Phase One and also
provided additional detail on implementation issues relating to the
Phase Two deadline.\9\ Because many of the issues presented in Phase
One also are implicated in the Phase Two relief request, such as the
issues concerning average price account processing and the transmission
of execution time information on disaggregated trades, the Commission
currently is considering the industry's experience with Phase One
implementation in evaluating the requests for relief concerning Phase
Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from Theodore Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to David S. Shillman, Associate
Director, Division, Commission, dated February 13, 2013, available
at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-10/s71010.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate and consistent with
the purposes of the Exchange Act to provide a temporary exemption from
the Phase Two broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring
requirements of Rule 13h-1 to further extend the compliance date for
Phase Two. This temporary exemption from the Rule's requirements should
provide the Commission with the necessary time to complete its review
of the implementation issues raised by FIF and SIFMA, assess the
appropriateness of the requested exemptive relief, announce its
response thereto, and allow broker-dealers time to develop, test, and
implement any necessary systems changes once the Commission's review is
complete.
    Accordingly, the Commission is providing a temporary exemption to
extend the compliance date to November 1, 2013, solely for the Phase
Two broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements
of Rule 13h-1.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The effective date for Rule 13h-1 remains October 3, 2011.
The compliance date for the requirement on large traders to identify
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 13h-1(b) was December 1, 2011.
The compliance date for Phase One was November 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act Section 13(h)(6) and
Rule 13h-1(g) thereunder, that broker-dealers subject to the
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements of Rule 13h-1
(other than clearing broker-dealers for a large trader that either (1)
is a U.S.-registered broker-dealer, or (2) trades through a sponsored
access arrangement) are temporarily exempted from those requirements
until November 1, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08100 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16660]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at South Carolina Regional
Transmission Planning Meeting

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting of the South
Carolina Regional Planning (SCRTP) Stakeholder Group, as noted below.
Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    SCRTP March 30, 2015 (10 a.m.-1 p.m.), Old Santee Canal Park,
Interpretive Center--Canal Room, 900 Stony Landing Drive, Moncks
Corner, SC 29461. The facility's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power & Light
Docket No. ER13-1930, Louisville Gas & Electric Company/Kentucky
Utilities
Docket No. ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket No. ER13-1941, Southern Companies

The meeting is open to the public.
    For more information, contact Mike Lee, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07141 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P