[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17843]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at a Meeting of PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.

March 31, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below of the PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. The attendance by staff is part of the
Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. Regional Planning Process
Working Group (RPPWG), April 5, 2006, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. (EDT), Spencer
Hotel, 700 King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.
    The discussion may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket Nos. ER05-1410 and EL05-148, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER06-456, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL06-50, American Electric Power Service Corporation.

    The meeting is open to the public.
    For additional information, contact Morris Margolis, Office of
Energy Markets and Reliability at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5096 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35696-35698]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16023]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83687; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2018-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Schedule of Fees and Rebates To Adopt Two New Adding Tiers and
Regulatory Fees in Connection With Use of the Central Registration
Depository

July 23, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 9, 2018, NYSE National, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE National'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 its Schedule of Fees and Rebates to
adopt (1) two new adding tiers, and (2) regulatory fees in connection
with use of the Central Registration Depository (``CRD'') by Exchange
ETP Holders that are not also members of the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The Exchange proposes to
implement the rule change on July 9, 2018.\4\ The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
June 27, 2018 (SR-NYSENAT-2018-14) and withdrew such filing on July
9, 2018. This filing replaces SR-NYSENAT-2018-14 in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates to
adopt (1) two new adding tiers, and (2) regulatory fees in connection
with use of CRD.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on July 9, 2018.
Proposed Adding Tiers
    The Exchange proposes two new adding tiers for displayed and non-
displayed orders in securities priced at or above $1.00, as follows.
Current Adding Tier would be re-named ``Adding Tier 1.''
Adding Tier 2
    Under proposed Adding Tier 2, the Exchange would offer the
following fees for transactions in stocks with a per share price of
$1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder
quotes at least 5% of the NBBO \5\ in 1,000 or more symbols on an
average daily basis, calculated monthly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange would explain the proposed 5% requirement in a
new footnote **. As proposed, ETP Holders would have to maintain a
bid or an offer at the NBB or the NBO for at least 5% of the trading
day in round lots in a security for that security to count toward
the tier requirement. The terms ``NBB,'' ``NBO,'' ``NBBO,'' and
``BBO'' are defined in NYSE National Rule 1.1. The Exchange believes
that the proposed 5% threshold is appropriate for a market of NYSE
National's size and trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.0005 per share for adding displayed orders;
     $0.0005 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO;
     $0.0007 per share for adding non-displayed orders; and
     $0.0005 per share for MPL orders.
    For example, in a given month, if an ETP Holder quotes at least 5%
of the NBBO in 800 symbols in round lots on the first day of the month
and 1,400 symbols on the second day of the month, the ETP Holder would
have 1,100 securities on average daily basis that meet the 5% NBBO
requirement after the second day, and would qualify for the proposed
Adding Tier 2 after the second day. Further, in a given symbol on a
given day, if the ETP Holder maintains a bid at the NBB for 4% of the
trading day and an offer at the NBO for 8% of the trading day, that
would result in the ETP Holder quoting 6% of the NBBO in that symbol
for that day and that symbol meeting the 5% NBBO requirement for that
day.
Adding Tier 3
    Under proposed Adding Tier 3, the Exchange would offer the
following fees for transactions in stocks with a per share price of
$1.00 or more when adding liquidity to the Exchange if the ETP Holder
quotes at least 5% of the NBBO \6\ in 600 or more symbols on an average
daily basis, calculated monthly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.0012 per share for adding displayed orders;
     $0.0012 per share for orders that set a new Exchange BBO;
     $0.0014 per share for adding non-displayed orders; and
     $0.0005 per share for MPL orders.
    Finally, as reflected in footnote * of the Schedule of Fees and
Rebates, the volume requirements for the current

Adding Tier and the Taking Tier are waived until July 1, 2018. The
Exchange proposes to extend the volume requirements [sic] for these
tiers indefinitely. To effect this change, the Exchange would delete
``until July 1, 2018'' from footnote *. As noted, the current Adding
Tier would be re-named ``Adding Tier 1,'' which will also be reflected
in footnote *.
CRD Fees
    The Exchange proposes to adopt regulatory fees related to CRD that
would be collected by FINRA.\7\ As proposed, FINRA would collect and
retain certain regulatory fees via CRD for the registration of persons
associated with an Exchange ETP Holder that is not also a FINRA member.
The CRD fees are use-based and there is no distinction in the cost
incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a member of an
exchange but not a FINRA member. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
adopt the following fees to mirror those assessed by FINRA pursuant to
Section (4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CRD is the central licensing and registration system for the
U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables individuals and
firms seeking registration with multiple states and self-regulatory
organizations to do so by submitting a single form, fingerprint card
and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through CRD, FINRA
maintains the qualification, employment and disciplinary histories
of registered associated persons of broker dealers.
    \8\ The proposed CRD fees are those charged by FINRA to non-
FINRA members when such fees are applicable. The Exchange notes that
there are certain FINRA CRD fees and requirements that are specific
to FINRA members but do not apply to Exchange ETP Holders that are
not also FINRA members. Exchange ETP Holders that are also FINRA
members would be charged CRD fees according to Section (4) of
Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) $100 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a
representative or principal;
    (2) $110 for the additional processing of each initial or amended
Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting,
amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or
proceedings;
    (3) $15 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint cards submitted electronically by the Member, plus a pass-
through of any other charge imposed by the United States Department of
Justice for processing each set of fingerprints;
    (4) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint cards submitted in non-electronic format by the Member,
plus a pass-through of any other charge imposed by the United States
Department of Justice for processing each set of fingerprints;
    (5) $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of
fingerprint results and identifying information that has been processed
through another self-regulatory organization and submitted to FINRA;
and
    (6) $45 annually for system processing for each registered
representative and principal.
* * * * *
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Adding Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Adding Tier 2 and Adding
Tier 3 fees for ETP Holder with at least 5% of the NBBO in 1,000 or
more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly or 600 or
more symbols on an average daily basis, calculated monthly,
respectively, who maintain a bid or an offer at the NBB or NBO in each
assigned security in round lots averaging at least 5% of the trading
day on an average daily basis, calculated monthly, in securities with a
per share price of $1.00 or more when adding liquidity are reasonable
because the proposed tiers would further contribute to incentivizing
ETP Holders to provide increased displayed liquidity on the Exchange,
benefiting all ETP Holders. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed Adding Tier 2 and Adding Tier 3 fees are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as all similarly situated market participants
will be subject to the same fees on an equal and non-discriminatory
basis. The Exchange further believes that providing the same fee for
adding displayed orders as that for orders that set a new Exchange BBO
under Adding Tier 2 and Adding Tier 3 is reasonable because the $0.0005
and $0.0012 fee per share in Adding Tier 2 and Adding Tier 3,
respectively, are sufficient incentive for providing liquidity.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to indefinitely
waive the Adding Tier (which would be re-named Adding Tier 1) and
Taking Tier volume requirements because the waiver will enable the
Exchange to continue to improve its overall competitiveness and
strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed
waiver is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to
all similarly situated ETP Holders.
CRD Fees
    The proposed CRD fees are reasonable because they are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members.\11\ As FINRA noted
in its filing adopting its existing fees, FINRA believes the fees are
reasonable based on the increased costs associated with operating and
maintaining the CRD system, and listed a number of enhancements made to
the CRD system since the last fee increase, including: (1)
Incorporation of various uniform registration form changes; (2)
electronic fingerprint processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which
allows subscribing firms to submit batch filings to the CRD system; (4)
increases in the number and types of reports available through the CRD
system; and (5) significant changes to BrokerCheck, including making
BrokerCheck easier to use and expanding the amount of information made
available through the system.\12\ These increased costs are similarly
borne by FINRA when an Exchange ETP Holder that is not a FINRA member
uses the CRD system, so the fees collected for such use should, as
proposed by the Exchange, mirror the fees assessed on FINRA members.
FINRA further noted that the proposed fees are reasonable because they
help to ensure the integrity of the information in the CRD system,
which is important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-regulatory
organizations and state securities regulators use the CRD system to
make licensing and registration decisions, among other things.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-30).
    \12\ See id., 77 FR at 38868.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange similarly believes that the proposed fees, like
FINRA's fees, are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees
because the fees will apply equally to all individuals and firms
required to report information to the

CRD system. Thus, those members that register more individuals or
submit more filings through the CRD system will generally pay more in
fees than those that use the CRD system to a lesser extent. In
addition, the proposed fees, like FINRA's fees, are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they will result in the same regulatory
fees being charged to all ETP Holders required to report information to
the CRD system and for services performed by FINRA, regardless of
whether or not such ETP Holder is a FINRA member.
    Further, the Exchange believes the proposed CRD fees provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among its
permit holders, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers and dealers. All similarly situated ETP Holders are
subject to the same fee structure, and every Member firm must use the
CRD system for registration and disclosure.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. The Exchange
believes that this could promote competition between the Exchange and
other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar
order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2018-16 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-NYSENAT-2018-16. 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-NYSENAT-2018-16 and should be submitted
on or before August 17, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16023 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68463-68465]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0812]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Upper Mississippi River MM 660.5-659.5, Lansing,
Iowa

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters in the Upper Mississippi River at Mile Marker (MM)
660.5 through 659.5. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from all potential hazards
associated with the implosion of the Lansing Power Station. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
(COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 4,
2023 through October 27, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from September 29, 2023 until October 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0812 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Nathaniel Dibley, Sector Upper Mississippi River
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-
2560, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because a temporary safety zone must be
established immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the use of explosives for
the implosion of the power plant and lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we
must establish this safety zone by September 29, 2023.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because action is needed to respond to
the potential safety hazards associated the use of explosives for the
implosion of the Lansing Power Station starting September 29, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP)
has determined that potential hazards associated with the use of
explosions for the implosion of the Lansing Power Plant will be a
safety concern for anyone operating or transiting within the Upper
Mississippi River from MM 660.5 through 659.5. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while the implosion is being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The implosion event will be occurring on two dates in which
explosives will be used on an implosion of the Lansing Power Plant
located between MM 660.5-659.5 beginning September 29, 2023. The safety
zone is designed to protect waterway users until work is complete.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek
permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative
via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well
as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement, as well as
reductions in the size of the safety zone through Local Notice to
Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Safety
Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone would impact
a small designated area located on the Upper Mississippi River at MM
660.5-659.5, near Lansing, IA. The Safety Zone is expected to be active
only during the implosion events, from September 29 until October 27,
2023. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety
zone when the safety zone is not enforced.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator because the zone will be enforced only when
work is being conducted.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities
in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone encompassing the width of the Upper Mississippi River at MM
660.5-659.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0812 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0812  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers
660.5-659.5, Lansing, IA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters within Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers 660.5-659.5,
Lansing, IA.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be subject to enforcement
from September 29, 2023, through October 27, 2023.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general safety zone
regulations in Sec.  165.23, entry of persons or vessels into this
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational
control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
issued by the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement, as well as reductions in size or scope of the safety zone
through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs),

and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) as appropriate.

    Dated: September 27, 2023.
A.R. Bender,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2023-21885 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 62500-62502]
[DOCID:fr05no07-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56707; File No. SR-Amex-2007-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Enable Settlements of Disciplinary Matters To Be Considered for
Approval or Rejection by Exchange Hearing Officers Without the Need To
Convene a Formal Hearing

October 26, 2007.
    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 October 19, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
receipt of this filing by 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt changes to sections 1 and 2 of
Article V of the Exchange's Constitution; Rule 345 of the Exchange's
``Office Rules''; and Rules 2(a), 2(b) and 8 of the Exchange's ``Rules
of Procedure in Disciplinary Matters'' in order to enable settlements
of disciplinary matters to be considered for approval or rejection by
Exchange hearing officers without the need to convene a formal hearing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, the Amex 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, Amex 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. Amex 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 is proposing amendments to sections 1 and 2 of Article
V of the Exchange's Constitution; Rule 345 of the Exchange's Office
Rules; and Rules 2(a), 2(b) and 8 of the Exchange's Rules of Procedure
in Disciplinary Matters in order to streamline the handling of
settlements of disciplinary matters by permitting such matters to be
addressed by a single Exchange hearing officer, who shall either
approve or reject the settlement, without being required to convene a
formal hearing.
    Under current Amex rules, settlements of disciplinary proceedings
are handled as follows: Should a member, member organization, approved
person, or a registered or non-registered employee or prospective
employee of a member or member organization (each a ``respondent''), on
one side, and enforcement staff of the Exchange, on the other side,
enter into a stipulation of facts and consent to a specified penalty (a
``Stipulation''), a formal hearing before an Exchange Disciplinary
Panel (``Panel''), which may act solely through its Chair, must be
convened to consider the Stipulation. Prior to that hearing, the Chair
is provided with an enforcement staff memorandum outlining the
Stipulation and analyzing how the agreed upon sanctions in the
Stipulation are consistent with the Exchange Sanctions Guidelines and
relevant precedent.\5\ The subsequent hearings generally are conducted
by telephone and consist of the respondent's counsel and enforcement
staff affirming support for the Stipulation. After considering the
presentation, the Chair issues a written decision either (i) approving
the Stipulation, (ii) rejecting the Stipulation, if the Chair considers
the penalty too lenient, or (iii) imposing a lesser penalty than that
contained in the Stipulation, if the Chair considers the agreed upon
penalty too severe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The respondent's counsel (or the respondent, in the event he
is not represented) is also concurrently provided with a copy of the
memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above process has proven more time consuming than the Exchange
believes necessary. It typically takes several months to schedule the
hearing as a result of various scheduling conflicts among the parties
involved, yet the hearing itself only takes a few minutes and is more
formal than substantive, given the negotiated settlement and submission
of the detailed enforcement staff memorandum in advance of the hearing.
Therefore, in order to streamline the process, the Exchange is
proposing to modify its rules to allow a Stipulation to be accepted or
rejected by a hearing officer without conducting a formal hearing.
Further, the Exchange is also proposing that the Chair's power to
impose a lesser penalty than that contained in a Stipulation be
eliminated as unnecessary, in view of the fact that the Amex
Adjudicatory Counsel, in any event, still retains the right to impose a
lower sanction if it exercises its right to call the Chair's acceptance
or rejection of the Stipulation for review.
    In summary, the new proposed Stipulation consideration procedure
will differ from current practice in only two substantive respects: (i)
No formal hearing will now take place before the Chair, as a single
hearing officer can consider the Stipulation without a formal hearing;
and (ii) if a hearing officer deems a penalty in a Stipulation to be
too severe, he will now reject the Stipulation, rather than propose a
lesser penalty. The Exchange anticipates that these changes will
provide a more efficient and expedient process for resolution of
Exchange disciplinary matters, without compromising the quality of the
process.
    In addition, Amex proposes certain non-substantive ``housekeeping''
changes, including elimination of repetitive or unnecessary phrasing;
creation of certain defined terms for ease of reference (i.e.,
``Stipulation''); and addition of rule cross-references.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with sections 6(b)(6),
6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act \6\ in that it is designed to ensure that
members and persons associated with members of the Exchange shall be
appropriately disciplined for violation of the securities laws, the
rules or regulations thereunder, or the rules of the Exchange; provide
a fair procedure for imposition of such discipline; and ensure that a
record is kept of such proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6), 78f(b)(7), and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of 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 Commission notes that Amex has satisfied the five-
day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
    The Commission believes that the proposed amendments should allow
the Exchange to settle disciplinary matters more efficiently, without
affecting the rights of respondents in any significant manner. In
addition, the Exchange's non-substantive changes should help make Amex
rules clearer and easier for readers to understand. The Commission
believes that for these reasons, waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Amex-2007-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-111. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. 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-Amex-2007-111 and should be
submitted on or before November 26, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21632 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55163-55164]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24037]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279; FRL-9986-01-OAR]

Release of Draft Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On or about October 29, 2018, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making available for public review the draft Integrated
Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (draft
IRP). This document contains the draft plans and the anticipated
schedule for the current review of the air quality criteria and
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for photochemical
oxidants including ozone (O3). The primary and secondary
O3 NAAQS are set to protect the public health and the public
welfare from O3 in ambient air.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments and related information, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (e.g., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    This document will be available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-air-quality-standards. The document will be
accessible under ``Planning Documents'' from the current review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Deirdre L. Murphy, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-0729, fax number: 919-541-027; or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0279.
    2. Tips for Preparing your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumption and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Information About the Project

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the
establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then
issue ``air quality criteria'' for those pollutants. The air quality
criteria are to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge
useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of
such pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' (CAA section 108(a)(2)).
Under section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish primary
(health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for each pollutant
for which the EPA has issued air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of
the Act requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria are to
reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the
pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same provision, the
EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the
NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.
    The Act additionally requires appointment of an independent
scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing
air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and
revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate (CAA
section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s, the requirement for
an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
    Presently the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS
for photochemical oxidants and O3.\1\ The draft document
announced in this notice is being developed as part of the planning
phase for the review. The draft IRP has been prepared jointly by the
EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, within the Office
of Research and Development, and the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, within the Office of Air and Radiation. This document will
be available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-air-quality-standards. The document will be accessible under
``Planning Documents'' from the current review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
June 26, 2018 (83 FR 29785).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft IRP is being made available for consultation with CASAC
and for public comment. Comments should be submitted to the docket, as
described above, by December 3, 2018. A separate Federal Register
notice will provide details about this meeting and the process for
participation. The final IRP will be prepared in consideration of CASAC
and public comments. The draft document announced in this notice
presents the draft plan for this review, including the anticipated
timeline for the review, the expected process for conducting the
review, and the key policy-relevant science issues that are expected to
guide the review. This draft document does not represent and should not
be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or
determination.

    Dated: October 29, 2018.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2018-24037 Filed 11-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66779-66782]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84870; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Allow Flexible Exchange Equity Options Where
the Underlying Security Is an Exchange-Traded Fund That Is Included in
the Option Penny Pilot To Be Settled in Cash

December 19, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On September 20, 2018, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act

of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to modify the rules related to Flexible Exchange (``FLEX'')
Options to allow FLEX Equity Options where the underlying security is
an Exchange-Traded Fund (``ETF'') that is included in the Option Penny
Pilot to be settled in cash.\3\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on October 11, 2018.\4\ On November
19, 2018, pursuant to Section 19(b(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission
designated a longer period within which to either approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\6\ The Commission received one comment on the proposed rule
change.\7\ This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act\8\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ For the definitions of ``FLEX Options,'' ``FLEX Equity
Options,'' and ``Option Penny Pilot,'' see infra notes 9 and 11.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84364 (October 4,
2018), 83 FR 51535 (October 11, 2018) (``Notice'').
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82994 (April 4,
2018), 83 FR 15441 (April 10, 2018). The Commission designated
January 9, 2019, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \7\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Samara Cohen, Head of ETF Global Markets, BlackRock, dated November
27, 2018 (``BlackRock Letter'').
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal and Comments Received

    The Exchange has proposed to amend NYSE American Rule 903G(c) to
allow for cash settlement for certain FLEX Equity Options.\9\
Currently, FLEX Equity Options settle by physical delivery of the
underlying security.\10\ The Exchange proposes, in the case of a FLEX
Equity Option whose underlying security is an ETF that is included in
the Option Penny Pilot \11\ (``FLEX ETF Option''), to allow settlement
either by the delivery of cash or, as currently permitted under the
Exchange rules, by physical delivery of the underlying security.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``FLEX Option'' is a customized options contract that is
subject to the rules in Section 15, Flexible Exchange Options. See
NYSE American Rule 900G(b)(1). A ``FLEX Equity Option'' is an option
on a specified underlying equity security that is subject to the
rules of Section 15. See NYSE American Rule 900G(b)(10).
    \10\ See NYSE American Rule 903G(c)(3)(i). There is an exception
to physical settlement for settlement of FLEX Binary Return
Derivatives (``ByRDs''). See NYSE American Rules 900G(b)(17),
903G(c)(3)(ii), and 910ByRDs.
    \11\ The ``Option Penny Pilot'' is a pilot program by the
options exchanges that permits certain option classes to be quoted
in penny or nickel increments on a pilot basis. See NYSE American
Rule 960NY, Commentary .02. See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 55162 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4738, 4739 (February 1, 2007)
(SR-Amex-2006-106) (``Option Penny Pilot Approval Order''). The
Option Penny Pilot is currently set to expire on December 31, 2018.
See NYSE American Rule 960NY, Commentary .02.
    \12\ See proposed NYSE American Rule 903G(c)(3)(ii). The
Exchange proposes conforming changes to NYSE American Rule
903G(c)(3) to reflect that the proposed rule change would add a
second exception to the general requirement for physical settlement
for FLEX Equity Options. See proposed NYSE American Rule
903G(c)(3)(i) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it believes that it is appropriate to
introduce cash settlement as an alternative for FLEX ETF Options
because ETFs generally have increasingly become a major part of
investors' portfolios, allowing investors to take advantage of many
unique opportunities to hedge their portfolios and manage risk.\13\ The
Exchange asserts that physical settlement possess certain risks with
respect to volatility and movement of the underlying security at
expiration that market participants may need to hedge against and cash
settlement does not present these same risks.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 51535-36.
    \14\ See id. at 51536. The Exchange also states that market
participants trade cash-settled FLEX ETF Options in the over-the-
counter market and exchange trading would provide benefits to these
market participants. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it seeks to allay concerns about cash-
settled equity options by proposing to adopt cash settlement as an
alternative settlement method for 64 ETFs that are included in the
Option Penny Pilot.\15\ The Exchange adds that generally index options
are cash-settled and derive their value from a disseminated index
price, and that similarly ETFs typically have their values linked to a
disseminated index price.\16\ The Exchange states that the option
classes included in the original pilot were chosen based on being one
of the most actively-traded multiply-listed options classes and also
states that the most recent expansion identified the most-active
classes based on the ``underlying security's `national average daily
volume over a six-month period.' '' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. The Commission notes that the criteria for
qualifying for the Option Penny Pilot is based on the national
average daily volume over a six month period in the options class
itself, not based on the volume of the underlying ETF. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60711 (September 23, 2009), 74
FR 49419 (September 28, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44) (``Option Penny
Pilot Expansion Order'') and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61106 (December 3, 2009), 74 FR 65193 (December 9, 2009) (NYSEAmex-
2009-74) (Option Penny Pilot Expansion Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would be
subject to the same position limits as non-cash-settled FLEX ETF
Options (i.e., the position limits in NYSE American Rule 906G).\18\ The
Exchange represents that it confirmed with the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') that OCC can support the clearance and settlement
of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options.\19\ The Exchange also states that it
believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional
traffic associated with the listing of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options
and that it believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as
a result of the proposal.\20\ The Exchange represents that it does not
believe that the proposed rule change will cause fragmentation of
liquidity.\21\ The Exchange further represents that it will monitor the
trading volume associated with the options series listed as a result of
this proposed rule change and the effect, if any, of these series on
market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's automated
systems.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 51536. The Exchange adds that
other existing regulatory safeguards, such as exercise limits and
reporting requirements, would also continue to apply. See id. at
51537. The Commission notes that NYSE American Rule 906G provides
generally that there are no position limits for FLEX Equity Options,
but that positions in FLEX Options that expire on a third Friday-of-
the-month expiration day (``Expiration Friday'') will be aggregated
with positions in non-FLEX Options on the same underlying and
subject to the position limits applicable to such options. See NYSE
American Rule 906G(b).
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 51536.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it will have an adequate surveillance
program for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options and states that it intends to
use the same surveillance procedures, including procedures concerning
surveillance for manipulation, for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options that
it uses for the Exchange's other options products.\23\ The Exchange
states that it believes manipulating the settlement price of cash-
settled FLEX ETF Options would be difficult because of the size of the
market for such ETFs.\24\ According to the Exchange each cash-settled
FLEX ETF Option is sufficiently active so as to alleviate concerns
about the potential

for manipulation.\25\ The Exchange states that the vast liquidity of
ETF options and the underlying equities markets and the high level of
participation among market participants that enter quotes or orders in
ETF options would, according to the Exchange, make it very difficult
for a single participant to alter the prices of each security
underlying an ETF without becoming exposed to regulatory scrutiny and
that such attempt at manipulation would be cost-prohibitive.\26\
Moreover, the Exchange states that it is a member of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group (``ISG'') and therefore would have access to
surveillance and investigative information regarding trading in the
underlying securities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id. at 51536-37.
    \26\ See id. at 51537.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter, which supports the
proposed rule change.\28\ The commenter states that it agrees with the
Exchange that the proposal alleviates several potential challenges
associated with physical settlement and presents advantages to the end
investor. This commenter asserts that the proposal would lead to
greater standardization of contract terms, mitigate counterparty risk,
increase price discovery, and improve information dissemination, which
would lead to greater transparency.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See BlackRock Letter, supra note 7.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEAMER-2018-39 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposal should be
approved or disapproved.\30\ Institution of such proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of
disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Act \31\ and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to modify NYSE American
Rule 903G(c)(3)(ii) to allow cash settlement for FLEX ETF Options. In
its proposal, the Exchange acknowledges that concerns have been raised
in the past regarding the susceptibility of cash-settled equity options
to manipulation. The Exchange asserts that to address such concerns, it
has proposed to limit cash settlement to options on a narrow set of
ETFs that are the most actively traded, as evidenced by the inclusion
of options on those ETFs in the Option Penny Pilot.\33\ The Commission
notes that the goal of the Option Penny Pilot since its inception has
been to analyze the impact of penny quoting on options spreads,
transaction costs, payment for order flow, and quote message
traffic.\34\ As a result, the Option Penny Pilot eligibility criterion
is based on the national average daily volume of the options classes
rather than the volume in the underlying securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 51536.
    \34\ See Option Penny Pilot Approval Order, supra note 11, at
4740. As noted in the 2009 Option Penny Pilot Expansion Order, for
example, the pilot report provided information on the most active
and least active options classes in the pilot and analyzed the
impact the pilot had on those options in certain specified areas.
See supra note 17, at 49420. See also Option Penny Pilot Expansion
Notice, supra note 17, at 65194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that critical to any assessment of the
potential for manipulation when trading cash-settled options on ETFs is
also an analysis of the liquidity and depth of the market for both the
ETFs underlying the options and the component securities of the ETFs
themselves. The Exchange has not, however, provided any specific data,
analysis, and studies demonstrating that the ETFs underlying the
options included in the Option Penny Pilot have the liquidity necessary
to adequately address concerns on the risks of manipulation and
potential for market disruption that may arise from cash settlement on
such options.
    As noted above, because options in the Option Penny Pilot are
assessed every six months based on options trading volume, we believe
the 64 ETFs underlying the options in the Option Penny Pilot that the
Exchange identifies generally in its proposal were those eligible for
the pilot as of the date the Exchange submitted its proposal to the
Commission. This raises further questions, which are not addressed in
the current proposal, as to how the Exchange will treat options on
those ETFs that become ineligible for the Option Penny Pilot in the
future, as well as how to analyze the potential for manipulation and
market disruption from future ETFs underlying options that are not yet,
but later, included in the Option Penny Pilot and will therefore become
eligible for cash settlement under the Exchange's proposal.
    The Exchange also takes the position that cash settlement for
options is not unique because other options exchanges trade cash-
settled options.\35\ Cash-settled options on equity securities such as
ETFs that hold specific component securities, however, are unique and
present distinct issues different from cash-settled index options that
track an index. The Commission notes that allowing for cash settlement
of FLEX ETF Options, as proposed, would permit cash settlement on a
significantly broader set of equity options than that previously
approved. Further, it is not clear from the Exchange's proposal how the
expanded use of cash settlement for equity options may bear on the
potential for manipulation or impact market quality since, as noted
above, the proposal lacks any supporting data or analysis on these
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 51536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to apply the same position limits to cash-
settled FLEX ETF Options as for other FLEX Equity Options. The
Commission notes that the Exchange generally does not impose position
limits for FLEX Equity Options unless the FLEX Equity Options'
expiration coincides with an Expiration Friday.\36\ This means that
there would be no position limits, including on the days leading up to
and surrounding Expiration Friday, for many of the cash-settled FLEX
ETF Options under the proposal. The Commission is therefore concerned
that the lack of position limits for non-Expiration Friday expiring
cash-settled FLEX ETF Options could make them more susceptible to
manipulation and could lead to market disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See NYSE American Rule 906G(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the proposal would allow for
settlement in cash or by physical delivery on options that otherwise
have the same terms. The Commission notes that allowing both physical
delivery and cash settlement alternatives could

increase market fragmentation and raise additional manipulation
concerns.
    The Commission notes that under the Commission's Rules of Practice,
the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder .
. . is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the
rule change.'' \37\ The description of a proposed rule change, its
purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its
consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,\38\
and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to
determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
view of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by January 17, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
January 31, 2019. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal
which are set forth in the Notice,\41\ in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Notice, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEAMER-2018-39 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-NYSEAMER-2018-39. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-39 and should be submitted
on or before January 17, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
January 31, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27992 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31167-31169]
[DOCID:fr30my08-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57849; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Reduce
Certain Order Exposure Times From Three Seconds to One Second

May 22, 2008.
    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 May 16, 2008, The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' 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 substantially
prepared by CBOE. 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 reduce the order handling and exposure
periods contained in certain of its rules from three seconds to one
second. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at CBOE'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, CBOE 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. CBOE 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 reduce the order
handling and exposure periods contained in Rules 6.45A, Priority and
Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System, 6.45B,
Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs
on the CBOE Hybrid System, 6.74A, Automated Improvement Mechanism
(``AIM''), and 6.74B, Solicitation Auction Mechanism, from three
seconds to one second.
    Rules 6.45A and 6.45B provide that an order entry firm may not
execute an order it represents as agent with a facilitation or
solicited order (referred to herein as ``crossing orders'') using the
Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') unless it first complies with the
three-second exposure requirement. Specifically, order entry firms may
not execute a facilitation cross unless: (i) The agency order is first
exposed on Hybrid for at least three seconds; (ii) the order entry firm
has been bidding or offering for at least three seconds prior to
receiving the agency order that is executable against such bid or
offer; or (iii) the order entry firm proceeds in accordance with the
floor-based open outcry crossing rules contained in CBOE Rule 6.74,
Crossing Orders. Similarly, order entry firms may not execute an order
they represent as agent against orders solicited from members and non-
member broker-dealers unless the agency order is first exposed on
Hybrid for at least three seconds. During this three-second exposure
period for crossing orders, other members may enter orders to trade
against the exposed order. Under the proposal, these exposure periods
would be reduced to one second.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For Hybrid 3.0 classes, the exposure period is established
on a class-by-class basis, provided the minimum exposure time must
be at least three seconds and shall not exceed 30 seconds. See CBOE
Rule 6.45B.03. The Exchange is proposing to reduce the minimum time
from three seconds to one second. The 30-second parameter will
remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.74A contains the requirements applicable to the execution of
orders using AIM. AIM allows members to enter cross transactions on
Hybrid. Currently, orders entered into AIM are exposed for a random
time period determined by the system that is not less than three
seconds and not more than five seconds, giving an opportunity

for additional trading interest to be entered before the orders are
automatically executed. Under the proposal, the random exposure period
for AIM would be reduced to one second.
    Rule 6.74B contains the requirements applicable to the execution of
orders using the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (the ``SAM Auction'').
The SAM Auction allows members to enter larger-sized cross transactions
on Hybrid (i.e., orders of 500 contracts or more). Orders entered into
the SAM Auction are currently exposed for a three second period, giving
an opportunity for additional trading interest to be entered before the
orders are automatically executed. Under the proposal, the exposure
period for the SAM Auction would be reduced to one second.
    The Exchange notes that in adopting the various three-second order
handling and exposure periods, it recognized that three seconds would
not be long enough to allow human interaction with the orders (or RFQs,
as applicable). Rather, market participants had become sufficiently
automated that they could react to these orders electronically. In this
context, CBOE believes it would be in all market participants' best
interest to minimize the exposure period to a time frame that continues
to allow adequate time for market participants to electronically
respond, as both the order being exposed and the participants
responding are subject to market risk during the exposure period. In
this respect, the Exchange states that its experience with the three-
second exposure time period indicates that one second would provide an
adequate response time.\4\ Most members wait until the end of the last
second of the three second period before responding to exposed orders
in order to minimize market risk. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe it is necessary or beneficial to the orders being exposed to
continue to subject them to market risk for a full three seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange has numerous market participants that have the
capability and do opt to respond within a one-second exposure period
on its Hybrid trading platform. In this regard, the Exchange notes
that it has other Hybrid electronic exposure mechanisms for which
timers set at or below one second provide for an adequate response
time. For example, the exposure and allocation timers for the
Exchange's Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') mechanism are currently
both set at 0.300 seconds, and numerous market participants can and
do opt to respond to HAL exposure messages within this time frame.
See CBOE Rule 6.14.
    HAL is a feature that provides automated order handling in
designated classes for qualifying electronic orders that are not
automatically executed. Qualifying orders that are received by HAL
are electronically exposed immediately upon receipt for an exposure
period of 0.300 seconds. If during the exposure period a Market-
Maker or Qualifying Member commits to trade any portion of the
order, the exposure period ends and the allocation period of 0.300
seconds will begin. At the conclusion of the allocation period the
order is executed or, if no responses are received, processed in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Rule 6.14.
    The Exchange believes that its experience with the HAL mechanism
supports its view that one second is sufficient time for market
participants to respond to CBOE's AIM and SAM Auction mechanisms,
which operate on the Hybrid trading system and employ the same type
of mechanical messaging as the HAL mechanism. The Exchange also
believes its experience with the HAL mechanism supports its view
that one second is sufficient time for market participants to have
an opportunity to enter orders to trade against an order exposed in
the book before the order entry firm is permitted to enter a contra-
side facilitation or solicited order. This is because market
participants receive mechanically messaged information about book
updates, and are able and do opt to automatically submit orders and
quotes in response to those book updates on the Hybrid trading
system in substantially the same manner as they would respond to a
HAL message. The Exchange also notes that any delay or latency
associated with submitting responses to an AIM or SAM Auction, or
responding to a book update, would be the same as responding to HAL
because all such responses are processed over the same network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When approving the existing three-second order handling and
exposure periods, the Commission concluded that, in the electronic
environment of Hybrid, reducing the exposure period to three seconds
could facilitate the prompt execution of orders while providing
participants in Hybrid with an adequate opportunity to compete for
exposed bids and offers.\5\ Continuing on that same logic, CBOE
believes that reducing its order handling and exposure periods from
three seconds to one second will benefit market participants. Since
members react to these orders electronically, and generally only opt to
respond at the tail end of the three-second period in order to minimize
market risk, CBOE believes that reducing the time periods to one second
will continue to provide CBOE members with sufficient time to ensure
effective interaction with orders.\6\ At the same time, CBOE believes
that reducing the time periods to one second will allow it to provide
investors and other market participants with more timely executions,
thereby reducing market risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53567 (March
29, 2006), 71 FR 17529 (April 6, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-09) (order
approving the reduction of the exposure period for crossing orders
in Hybrid under Rules 6.45A and 6.45B from ten seconds to three
seconds).
    \6\ The Exchange believes that the proposed timeframe would give
market participants sufficient time to respond, compete, and provide
price improvement for orders. The Exchange also notes that
electronic systems are readily available to, if not already in place
for, CBOE members that allow them to respond in a meaningful way
within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This shortened exposure period is fully consistent with the
electronic nature of Hybrid. CBOE members have electronic systems
available that would allow them to respond in a meaningful way within
the proposed timeframe. It will continue to provide market participants
with sufficient time to respond, compete, and provide price improvement
for orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular in that it is designed to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
provide investors with more timely execution of their options orders,
while ensuring that there is an adequate exposure of all crossing
orders in the CBOE marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which CBOE consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or

    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-16 and should be
submitted on or before June 20, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-12030 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P