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

    The Exchange proposes to add a new Options 8, Section 32(c) which
provides, ``Time in Force or ``TIF.'' The term ``Time in Force'' shall
mean the period of time that the System will hold an order for
potential execution, and shall include:''. This sentence will provide
more contextual information. The Exchange will renumber the Immediate
or Cancel Order from Options 8, Section 32(b)(5) to new Options 8,
Section 32(c)(1). The Exchange proposes to add two additional TIFs,
``Day'' and ``Good Til Cancelled'' at proposed new Options 8, Section
32(c)(2) and (3). The Exchange proposes to utilize the descriptions
proposed within new Rule 1080(c)(1)

and (4). The Exchange proposes to add a description for Floor Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders within new proposed Options 8, Section 32(e).
The description is copied from Rule 1064(e) with a title, ``Floor
Qualified Contingent Cross Order or Floor QCC Order.'' \90\ The
Exchange proposes to re-letter the remainder of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The Exchange proposes, ``A Floor Qualified Contingent Cross
Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or sell at least
1,000 contracts, as provided in Options 8, Section 30(e), that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, as that
term is defined in subsection Options 8, Section 30(e)(3), coupled
with a contra-side order or orders totaling an equal number of
contracts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options 8, OFPA A-3
    The Exchange proposes to add a cross-reference to the definition of
All-or-None Orders in proposed new Rule 1080(b)(5) within Options Floor
Procedure Advice A-3.
    The Exchange notes that other revisions are being made to Options
8, Section 32(b)(3) that were made in a prior rule change \91\ and
inadvertently removed by a subsequent rule change. The subsequent rule
change did not capture the amended text.\92\ The Exchange is
reinstating the changes that were made in SR-Phlx-2019-03 within this
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85262 (March 7,
2019), 84 FR 9192 (SR-Phlx-2019-03).
    \92\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85740 (April 29,
2019), 84 FR 19136 (SR-Phlx-2019-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\93\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\94\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest by amending Rule 1080 to amend the order types
descriptions and eliminate references and descriptions of outdated
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \94\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Types
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the distinction between ``agency
and ``proprietary'' is consistent with the Act because this distinction
is not necessary to describe the types of orders available on Phlx. The
Exchange notes that while that distinction may have been applicable at
one point in time with respect to entering orders, it is not suitable
to limit the entry of certain orders on that basis. Phlx captures
capacity of market participants when they submit orders to the System.
Further, the Exchange notes within proposed Rule 1080(b) any
limitations that impact a market participant's ability to submit an
order. Finally, proposed Rule 1014(e) will provide limitations for ROTs
and Specialists submitting orders.
    The Exchange notes that today no other options market segregates
the submission of order types by whether the order is an agency or
proprietary order. Rather, Phlx's proposal as well as rules of other
options exchanges impose limitations on the types of orders that may be
entered by ROTs and Specialists as described further herein, as well as
other limitations related to market ROTs and Specialists makers
entering orders.\95\ While the Exchange is eliminating the references
to ``agency'' and proprietary'' orders, the Exchange notes that there
is no impact to market participants or systemic change that results
from the elimination of these terms. The list of order types presented
below reflect current practice. The Exchange is not changing the manner
in which orders are being submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that by defining the rules, similar to other options markets,
it will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rules and permit
an ease of reference when comparing rulebooks. The Exchange notes that
this proposal will not amend the System except for the changes
described below where the Exchange is noting a change is proposed.
Other functionalities offered by Phlx remains unchanged with this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 3, Section 7, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC Rule 515 and Cboe Exchange,
Inc. Rule 5.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to replace the current rule text regarding
order types within Rule 1080(b) with a list of current order types will
bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rules. Today, Rule
1080(b)(i) lists certain order types that have not been available on
Phlx since Phlx replatformed its technology to INET in 2009.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating order types that
are not available, which include ``or better,'' ``simple cancel to
reduce size (cancel leaves),'' ``cancel to change price'' and
``possible duplicate orders,'' is consistent with the Act because the
revised rule will make clear the order types that are available and
will clarify the rules. The Exchange notes that these order types have
not been available for some time. The Exchange believes market
participants are aware of the current order types that are accepted by
the System because they review the Exchange's specifications. Proposed
Rule 1080(b) would make clear what order types are available and
provide a description of each order type.
    Current Options 8, Section 32 describes the order types available
for trading on the Trading Floor of the Exchange. The order types
available within Phlx are the same regardless of whether the order is
entered electronically or through the Options Floor Broker Management
System.\96\ Additionally, these order types may be entered in either
the simple or complex order books. For these reasons, the Exchange is
simultaneously updating the descriptions of the order types into
Options 8, Section 32, and Rules 1080 and 1098 to ensure conformity
among these rules. The description of Market Order within proposed Rule
1080(b)(1) is substantially similar to the description of Options 8
Section 32(a). The description of a Limit Order within proposed
1080(b)(2) is identical to the description within Options 8, Section
32(b). The ISO description within proposed Rule 1080(b)(3) refers to
current Rule 1083 and references the current behavior within PIXL
pursuant to Rule 1087. Finally, ISO behavior for the Opening Process is
referenced within Rule 1017. The Exchange believes that describing the
behavior of the ISO Order within Rule 1080(b) is consistent with the
Act because this functionality exists today and is being centralized
within one description for ease of reference for members. The Stop
Order description proposed within Rule 1080(b)(4) is being modified
from the definition within Options 8, Section 32(c)(1) but the Exchange
believes the description is substantially similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Options Floor Based Management System or (``FBMS'') is a
component of the System designed to enable members and/or their
employees to enter, route and report transactions stemming from
options orders received on the Exchange. The FBMS also is designed
to establish an electronic audit trail for options orders
negotiated, represented and executed by members on the Exchange, to
the extent permissible under Rule 1000(f), such that the audit trail
provides an accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic and other
orders, quotations and transactions on the Exchange, beginning with
the receipt of an order by the Exchange, and further documenting the
life of the order through the process of execution, partial
execution, or cancellation of that order. The features of FBMS are
described in Rules 1063(e) and 1085. In addition, a non-member or
member may utilize an FBMS FIX interface to create and send an order
into FBMS to be represented by a Floor Broker for execution. See
Phlx Rule 1080(a)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adding a description for Non-Displayed Contingency Orders within
Rule 1080(b)(5) will enhance the Rulebook and allow the Exchange to
readily refer to these categories of orders within its rules. In
addition, this description will apprise members of the order types on
Phlx that are Non-Displayed in one location within the

Rulebook. The All-or-None description within proposed Rule 1080(b)(6)
is identical to Rule 1078.
    The Opening Sweep description is being revised to describe this
order type as an order and not a quote. The Exchange notes that the
categorization of the Opening Sweep is not a substantial change to the
manner in which the order type functions. The System is not being
amended. The Opening Sweep is currently described within Rule
1017(b)(i).\97\ Current Rule 1080(b)(i) notes the Exchange offers an
opening-only-market order and a limit on opening order. The Exchange is
amending the definition of Opening Sweep within Rule 1017(b)(i) by
removing the language and simply referring to proposed Rule 1080(b)(6).
Phlx traditionally has referred to all interest within the SQF protocol
as quote interest. The Exchange proposes to amend the references to
``quotation'' to ``order'' to make clear the type of interest that is
being entered. The Opening Sweep is an IOC Order that only may be
entered into the Opening Process. Further, the Exchange proposes to
make clear that an Opening Sweep may only be entered by a Specialist or
ROT as this order type is submitted through the SQF protocol.\98\ Other
market participants tag orders for the Opening Process by placing a TIF
of ``OPG'' on the order as explained below. The Exchange notes that all
members may submit interest into the Opening Process. The Exchange
believes that this rule change is consistent with the Act because the
categorization has no impact on the functionality on the manner in
which members utilize the Opening Sweep functionality. From the member
prospective there is no functional change. The Exchange believes that
this amendment will conform the categorization of this order type to
that of order types that are Immediate-or-Cancel Orders despite the
protocol. The Exchange's proposal to add two new sentences to the
Opening Sweep description which provide, ``This order type is not
subject to any protections listed in Rule 1099, except for Automated
Quotation Adjustments. The Opening Sweep will only participate in the
Opening Process pursuant to Rule 1017 and will be cancelled upon the
open if not executed'' are consistent with the Act. Automated Quotation
Adjustments protections applies to quotes entered into SQF but would
not apply to an Opening Sweep which is an order entered into SQF. The
Exchange notes that the second sentence is not new as Opening Sweeps
are described within Rule 1017 today and apply only during the Opening
Process. Both of sentences bring greater transparency to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Rule 1017(b)(i) provides, ``An Opening Sweep is a one-sided
electronic quotation submitted for execution against eligible
interest in the system during the Opening Process.''
    \98\ See Phlx Rule 1080(a)(i)(B) notes that (B) ``Specialized
Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that allows Specialists,
SQTs and RSQTs may submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers ROTs and Specialists the ability to
expeditiously submit IOC orders through SQF, without having to utilize
the FIX protocol. This allows ROTs and Specialists to manage risk
utilizing a single protocol, SQF. Unlike other market participants,
ROTs and Specialists are required to provide liquidity to the market
and are subject to certain obligations, including a requirement to
provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.\99\ ROTs and
Specialists utilize IOCs (today sweeps) to trade out of accumulated
positions and manage their risk when providing liquidity on the
Exchange. Proper risk management, including using these IOCs to offload
risk, is vital for ROTs and Specialists, and allows them to maintain
tight markets and meet their quoting and other obligations to the
market. The Exchange believes that unlike other market participants,
ROTs and Specialists have obligations and risks, which are mitigated by
providing these market participants with the ability to increase their
efficiency in submitting such orders and thereby allow them to maintain
quality markets to the benefit of all market participants that trade on
the Exchange. The Exchange notes that other exchanges offer similar
capabilities to market makers.\100\ Furthermore, other exchanges do not
other order protections on order submitted through a quoting protocol.
MIAX's Price Protection on Non-Market Maker Orders is not available for
orders submitted by a Market Maker.\101\ The Price Protection on Non-
Market Maker Orders prevents an order from being executed at a price
beyond the price designated in the order's price protection
instructions, and is a similar protection to the Exchange's Limit Order
Price Protection. The Exchange similarly believes that it is consistent
with the Act to not apply certain protections to Market Maker
Immediate-or-Cancel Orders submitted through SQF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Specialists have quoting obligations during the Opening
Process as specified in Rule 1017(d) and ROTs and Specialists have
intra-day quoting obligations as specified in Rule 1093.
    \100\ Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'')
utilizes its MIAX Express Interface (MEI), a quoting interface, for
market makers to enter immediate-or-cancel orders.
    \101\ See MIAX Rule 515(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ROTs and Specialists handle a large amount of risk when quoting on
the Exchange and in addition to the risk protections required by the
Exchange, ROTs and Specialists utilize their own risk management
parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a ROTs
and Specialist order resulting from an error from being entered. The
Exchange believes that ROTs and Specialists, unlike other market
participants, have the ability to manage their risk when submitting IOC
Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this method of
order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly
in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on
these participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to describe the Cancel-Replacement Order
within proposed Rule 1080(b)(7) is similar to the order type currently
described within Options 8, Section 32(c)(7). The Exchange is amending
this description in a manner that is similar to Options 8, Section
32(7) except the Exchange is adding additional rule text that is not
currently described within the existing Rules. The Exchange proposes to
make clear when a loss of priority would occur when submitting a
Cancel-Replacement Order. The Exchange believes that memorializing the
current System practice in which the System determines how to
prioritize a Cancel-Replacement Order is consistent with the Act
because when an order is routable, the System would need to re-check
the order to determine if it is marketable and therefore routable. Phlx
Rule 1093 describes routing functionality.
    With respect to QCC Orders, PIXL Orders, Legging Orders and
Directed Orders, the Exchange's proposal to note the rule where a
detailed explanation of the Order Type may be found will add greater
transparency to the Exchange's Rules. The Exchange's proposal to
include all order types within proposed Rule 1080(b) is consistent with
the Act and the protection of investors and the general public because
it will provide members with a complete list of order types thereby
adding greater transparency to the Exchange's Rules.
    The Exchange's proposal to add TIFs to proposed Rule 1080(c) will
also enhance the Exchange's Rulebook by including these order types to
the proposed set of Rules and providing additional transparency. The
Exchange proposes to add at Rule 1080(c)(1) a description of a Day
Order. The Exchange's proposed description of a Day Order memorializes
the manner in

which the System currently treats a TIF of ``Day.'' Exchange members
today are familiar with a Day Order which is described in the
specifications. The Exchange believes that this description is
consistent with the Act in that the TIF of Day simply clarifies that an
order with a TIF of day will be cancelled at the end of the day if not
executed and serves to provide greater clarity to the Exchange's Rules.
The Exchange's proposal to describe an IOC Order at proposed Rule
1080(c)(2) similar to Options 8 Section 32(c)(8) except that the
Exchange also proposes to note that the IOC Order may be a Market
Order. This is not the case for Market Orders on the trading floor as a
price is required to be specified in the trading crowd. Today, Market
Orders may be marked with a TIF of ``IOC'', this is not a System
change. The Exchange is also proposing to include new rule text to
further describe that in an electronic market the types of protocols
that may be utilized on Phlx to submit IOC Orders. Further the Exchange
proposes to note that IOC orders submitted through SQF are not subject
to the order protections within Phlx Rule 1099, except for Automated
Quotation Adjustments.
    The Exchange notes that SQF is utilized by ROTs and Specialists.
These market participants are required to provide liquidity to the
market and are subject to certain obligations, including requirements
to provide two-sided quotes on a daily basis.\102\ ROTs and Specialists
use IOC Orders to trade out of accumulated positions and manage their
risk when providing liquidity on the Exchange. Proper risk management,
including using IOC Order to offload risk, is vital for these market
participants, and allows them to maintain tight markets and meet their
quoting obligations to the market. ROTs and Specialists handle a large
amount of risk when quoting and in addition to the risk protections
required by the Exchange, ROTs and Specialists utilize their own risk
management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood
of a ROT or Specialist order resulting from an error from being
entered. The Exchange believes that ROTs and Specialists, unlike other
market participants, have the ability to manage their risk when
submitting IOC Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this
method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry,
particularly in light of the quoting obligations the Exchange imposes
on these participants. The Exchange noted in a another rule change that
market makers on Phlx may enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF
and are similarly not subject to certain risk protections.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Phlx Rule 1091.
    \103\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81034 (June 27,
2017), 82 FR 30923 (July 3, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-58). See also
Securities and Exchange Release No. 76295 (October 29, 2015), 80 FR
68338 at 68339 (November 4, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-83) (Phlx noted in
footnote 8 that while SQF permits the receipt of quotes, sweeps are
not included for purposes of the Percentage Based risk protection in
Rule 1095(i)). Phlx Rule 1080(c)(iii)(B) provides that, ``Market
Sweeps are processed on an immediate-or-cancel basis, may not be
routed, may be entered only at a single price, and may not trade
through away markets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to define an order with a TIF of ``Opening
Only'' within Rule 1080(c)(3) as an IOC Order that can be entered
during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act. The limitation
of order protections within the Opening Process is noted within Rule
1099. The Exchange notes that this TIF exists today but is being
renamed. Today, orders that are entered as IOC by a ROT or Specialist
through SQF \104\ are subject to the protections listed in Rule
1099,\105\ except for Order Price Protection and Market Order Spread
Protection. The Order Price Protection and Market Order Spread
Protection, while available for orders, are not available on SQF. The
Exchange's proposal to note these exceptions within this rule is
consistent with the Act because it brings greater transparency with
respect to the availability of order protections. The Exchange notes
ROTs and Specialists utilize IOC Orders to trade out of accumulated
positions and manage their risk when providing liquidity on the
Exchange. Proper risk management, including using these IOC Orders to
offload risk, is vital for ROTs and Specialists, and allows them to
maintain tight markets and meet their quoting and other obligations to
the market. The Exchange believes that allowing ROTs and Specialists to
submit IOC Orders though their preferred protocol increases their
efficiency in submitting such orders and thereby allow them to maintain
quality markets to the benefit of all market participants that trade on
the Exchange. Further, unlike other market participants, ROTs and
Specialists provide liquidity to the market place and have
obligations.\106\ The Exchange believes not offering Order Price
Protection and Market Order Spread Protection for IOC Orders entered
through SQF is consistent with the Act because ROTs and Specialists
have more sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants
and are able to manage their risk, particularly with respect to
quoting, using tools that are not available to other market
participants.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See Rule 1080(a)(i)(B).
    \105\ Phlx Rule 1099 is titled, ``Risk Protections.''
    \106\ Specialists have quoting obligations during the Opening
Process as specified in Rule 1017(d) and ROTs and Specialists have
intra-day quoting obligations as specified in Rule 1093.
    \107\ ROTs and Specialists quotes are subject to various
protections listed in Rule 1099(c). These additional quoting
protections permit ROTs and Specialists to manage their exposure at
the Exchange. Other market participants would not be subject to
these risk protections because they do not submit quotes on Phlx and
do not utilize SQF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange's proposal to memorialize a GTC Order within
proposed Rule 1080(c)(4) is consistent with the Act and will provide a
description for a GTC Order that does not exist today. The TIF is noted
within current Rule 1080(b)(i) without a description. Similar to a Day
Order, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to
describe a GTC Order, which is eligible as an order until cancelled,
within Rule 1080(c) to provide members with greater transparency as to
the TIFs which are available on Phlx.
    The Exchange's proposal to note the various routing strategies
within Rule 1080(d) is consistent with the Act because it will also add
greater transparency to the Exchange's rules. These routing strategies
are already described within Rule 1093 and will add greater
transparency to this rule. The Exchange is simply relocating the
restrictions that are applicable today to Off-Floor Broker Dealers to
new Rule 1080(e) without any substantive changes.
    The order types description within proposed Rule 1080(b) should
promote just and equitable principles of trade and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and the national market system by
providing greater clarity concerning certain aspects of the System's
operations. The order types proposed within Rule 1080(b) do not add any
new functionality, rather, they provide descriptions for each available
order type currently offered by the Exchange. The proposed rules
provide additional detail related to functionality for certain order
types and the handling of orders which offers greater transparency with
respect to the Exchange's order type functionality.
    Proposed Rule 1014(e) would permit ROTs and Specialists to enter
orders in both their assigned and unassigned options, but it would also
limit a ROT or Specialist to not exceed 25 percent of the total number
of all contracts executed by the ROT or Specialist in unassigned
options in any calendar quarter. This limitation is similar to

limitations on other options markets.\108\ Today, ROTs and Specialists
on Phlx may not enter orders in non-appointed option series.\109\ The
Exchange's proposal to permit a ROT or Specialist to enter a limited
amount of orders is consistent with the Act because ROTs and
Specialists may enter orders for purposes of providing liquidity on the
Exchange in certain circumstances. Further, the Exchange still proposes
to limit ROTs and Specialists. The Exchange is excluding order types
that today may not be entered by a Specialist or ROT today. Today,
Specialists and ROTs may not enter All-or-None Orders, and public
customer-to-public customer cross orders subject to Rule 1087(a) and
(f), which orders may only be entered by a Public Customer. The
Exchange proposes to prohibit SQTs and RSQTs from entering Market
Orders and Stop Orders as well because the Exchange requires SQTs and
RSQTs to ``maintain a two-sided market in those options in which the
electronic ROT is registered to trade, in a manner that enhances the
depth, liquidity and competitiveness of the market'' pursuant to Phlx
Rule 1081(a)(i). The Exchange believes that permitting SQTs and RSQTs
to enter Market Orders does not achieve this objective as Market Orders
are designed to remove liquidity from the Order Book. Further, the
Exchange does believes that Stop Orders similarly are designed to
remove liquidity from the Order Book and are non-displayed order types
until they are triggered which does not benefit the role of an SQT or
RSQT in displaying liquidity on the Order Book. Finally, Directed
Orders may not be entered by Specialists and ROTs today pursuant to
Rule 1068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See ISE, GEMX and MRX Options 2, Section 6, NOM Rules at
Chapter VII, Section 6(e), and BX Rules at Options 2, Section 5(e).
Further, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American'') do not limit the types of orders that can be
entered by market makers. See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37B-O and NYSE
American Rule 925.2NY.
    \109\ Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii), SQTs and RSQTs may only trade in a
market making capacity in classes of options in which the SQT is
assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal is consistent with the Act. No
longer limiting the amount of orders that may be executed by ROTs and
Specialists to simply appointed classes will allow market making
participants to enter more orders than they are permitted to enter
today. The current restriction imposed by Commentary .01 to Rule 1014
to execute at least 50% of the trading activity in any quarter is only
possible today in assigned options series and therefore is not very
restrictive. Allowing ROTs and Specialists to enter order in assigned
series is in addition to their current obligations to quote intra-
day.\110\ In order to meet those obligations ROTs and Specialists will
need to stay focused on adding liquidity to Phlx. Further, permitting
ROTs and Specialists to enter orders in non-appointed classes provided
they do not exceed 25% of the total number of contracts executed in any
quarter is consistent with the Act because the proposed rule will allow
ROTs and Specialists to continue to provide liquidity on Phlx, as is
the case today, while not restricting their business activity in a
manner that is no other market participants is restricted to transact.
Phlx's proposal will allow market making participants the same
flexibility as exists today on other options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Phlx Rule 1081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend current Rule 1080(b)(i)(B) and (C)
to remove the current size limitation of 10 contracts pursuant to which
certain orders must be entered as IOC by ROTs and Specialists is
consistent with the Act because the Exchange believes that this
limitation is no longer necessary given the evolution of the market
place and further that it hinders non-SQT ROTs and Specialists
unnecessarily. No other options market has similar limitations
today.\111\ The 10 contract limitation was put in place to restrict
participants, whose primary role was to provide liquidity, from using
orders of small size to avoid providing liquidity using quotes which
were historically required to be of a size of 10 contracts or more.
Proposed Rule 1080(b) does not impose any limit and serves to promote
just and equitable principles of trade by not limiting ROTs and
Specialists, who today are the only market participants with such a
restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See note 32 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the rule change proposed for Opening Sweeps within
proposed Rule 1080(b)(6) the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1098 to
amend the descriptions of COOP Sweeps, COLA Sweeps and CBOOK Sweeps to
change the description of these IOC Orders from a quote to an order.
The Exchange's proposal to describe these sweeps as one-sided orders
entered by a Specialist or ROT through SQF instead of as one-sided
quotations will make clear the type of interest that these sweeps are
for purposes of order entry. Phlx traditionally has referred to all
interest within the SQF protocol as quote interest but this
classification is not correct when distinguishing interest as either a
quote or order. Today these sweeps are considered order interest, so no
change is being made to the manner in the System accepts or processes
these sweeps. The Exchange believes its proposal is consistent with the
Act because the proposal will align sweeps in the proper category of
interest as order interest to avoid confusion and protect investors and
the general public.
Outdated Systems
    The Exchange proposes to remove references to obsolete
functionality within Rule 1080(c)-(h). There are multiple references to
legacy systems and terms related to those Systems. The AUTOM order
delivery system grew over the years into the current fully automated
Phlx options trading system XL II. AUTOM and AUTO-X were replaced by
the Phlx XL System, such that references to both terms refer to Phlx
XL.\112\ Also, specialist manual handling no longer exists.\113\ The
explanation of manual order handling is not relevant in today's System.
The Exchange notes that all executions occur within the match engine as
provided for within Options 8, Section 25. Partial manual execution is
not possible within the current System. Rule 1080(c)(iv)(G) provides
that no orders are handled manually on Phlx XL, which the Exchange is
simply referring to as System. As all AUTO-X functionality was
overridden by the initiation of Phlx XL fully automated technology, the
references to the terms ``Book Match'' and ``Book Sweep'' are no longer
necessary. The rule text referring to legacy systems should have been
removed at the time that Phlx XL was implemented. The functionality
described in Rule 1080(c) (iii)(A) no longer exists, including Auto-
Quote \114\ and the Book Sweep feature, as previously mentioned. These
features initially existed within Phlx XL. Phlx XL was later replaced
by Phlx XL II in

2009.\115\ Rule 1080(e), Extraordinary Circumstances, is proposed to be
deleted, because it refers to the obsolete functionality of Phlx XL and
AUTO-X (AUTO-X was part of AUTOM and is no longer in existence). This
also involves the deletion of subparagraph (i), because the Emergency
Committee no longer exists; \116\ emergencies related to the System or
trading floor are handled pursuant to various other provisions.\117\
The Exchange believes that removing obsolete rule text and
functionality will protect investors and the public interest because it
will avoid confusion within the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See Securities Exchange Act 72152 (May 12, 2014), 79 FR
28561 (May 16, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-32).
    \113\ Manual execution by a specialist could occur in AUTOM.
Specialist manual handling, and this rule governing order messages,
all of which is obsolete. AUTOM and AUTO-X were replaced by Phlx XL.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27, 2004), 69 FR
46612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59). Rule 1080(c)(iv)(G) notes
that no orders will be executed manually on Phlx XL which is the
current System.
    \114\ Auto-Quote was the Exchange's electronic options pricing
system, which enabled specialists, Streaming Quote Traders
(``SQTs'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''), to
automatically monitor and instantly update and submit electronic
quotations for equity option and index option contracts. Auto-Quote
was eliminated in 2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55498 (March 20, 2007, 72 FR 14318 (March 27, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-
15).
    \115\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
    \116\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71906 (April 8,
2014), 79 FR 20949 (April 14, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-20).
    \117\ See By-Law Article VII, Section 7-5, Authority to Take
Action Under Emergency or Extraordinary Market Conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, certain redundant rule text is being removed. With
respect to Rule 1080(c)(iii)(B), the Exchange notes that the Phlx XL
functionality described herein was renamed ``Market Sweep.'' Today this
functionality is referred to within the Specialized Quote Feed
functionality within Rule 1080(a)(i)(B) and will also be referred to
within proposed Rule 1080(c)(2)(B) which describes IOC Orders. The
Exchange notes that the Quote Exhaust feature is described within Rule
1082(a)(3) and therefore this reference in not necessary within Rule
1082. The SEC Quote Rule is referenced in current Rule
1082(a)(iii).\118\ Rule 1080(c)(ii)(A)(1) defines an ``Order Entry
Firm'' as a member organization of the Exchange that is able to route
orders to AUTOM. The term Order Entry Firm is not necessary to describe
order types or other functionality. Rule 1080(c)(ii)(A)(2) defines a
``User'' as any person or firm that obtains access to AUTO-X through an
Order Entry Firm. The term User is an obsolete definition intended to
refer to the outdated AUTOM system. The Exchange uses the terms member
and member organization in its rules to apply to entities and persons
that may access the System. The Exchange only permits members and
member organizations to access it System. Rule 1080(f), Specialist
Obligations, is proposed to be deleted because it refers to obligations
that were once applicable to trading on Phlx XL and AUTOM, both of
which are obsolete, as discussed above. Specialist obligations are
noted within Phlx Rule 1020, ``Registration and Functions of Options
Specialists'' as well as Rule 1014, ``Obligations of Market Makers.''
The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 1080(g), Contra-Party
Participation, because Book Match is obsolete. As noted in the last
sentence of the text, with Phlx XL, Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B)(3)(c) discusses
new interest in the opposite side of the market. Removing obsolete and
redundant rule text will bring greater clarity to the Exchange's rules.
With respect to Commentary .01(b) of Rule 1080, the Exchange notes that
it does not throttle as described in this rule text. The Exchange notes
that the language contained in Commentary .01 to Rule 1080 refers to
legacy functionality that existed prior to the INET transition and does
not reflect current functionality. Today, the System automatically
throttles and provides equal access to the Order Book across all
interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See Phlx Rule 1082(a)(iii) The term ``SEC Quote rule''
shall mean rule 602 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1000
    The Exchange's proposal to memorialize the defined term ``Order
Entry Firm'' within proposed Rule 1000(b)(38) will permit the term to
be utilized throughout the Rulebook.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 1000(b)(40) which is
currently reserved, to define the term ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' or
``ABBO'' to mean the displayed National Best Bid or Offer not including
the Exchange's Best Bid or Offer will add greater clarity to the
Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the term ``Agency Order'' from
Rule 1000(b)(49) is consistent with the Act because this term is not
necessary or utilized elsewhere in the Rulebook other than without Rule
1080(b). The Exchange is revising Rule 1080(b) such that this term is
no longer required.
Rule 1017
    The Exchange's proposal to capitalize the term ``All-Or-None'' and
revise the defined term ``Opening Sweep'' to refer to Rule 1080(b)(6)
are non-substantive amendments.
Rule 1078
    The Exchange's proposal to delete Rule 1078 is non-substantive.
Rule 1098
    The Exchange's proposal to cross-reference proposed Rule 1080(c)
refer to the defined terms within Rule 1080(b) is consistent with the
Act because as noted herein both simple and complex orders are similar
for the order types defined within proposed Rule 1080(b). This
amendment merely continues to conform those terms.
Options 8, Section 32
    The Exchange's proposal to re-number/re-letter Options 8, Section
32 is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to amend proposed Rule
1080(b)(3) to add further information to the All-or-None Order to align
the rule with proposed Rule 1080(b)(5), except with respect to the last
sentence of proposed Rule 1080(b)(5) which does not apply with respect
to Floor Trading is consistent with the Act. The additional clarity
will serve to align the rules and bring greater transparency to the
distinctions between electronic and Floor Trading where those
distinctions exist.
    Adding a new TIF section to proposed Options 8, Section 32(c)
similar to proposed Rule 1080(c) will align those rules. Memorializing
a Day Order and a GTC Order will also make clear that those TIFs are
available today on the Trading Floor. Those TIFs are available today
and are not included within Options 8, Section 32.
    Finally, the Exchange seeks to memorialize the Floor QCC Order
which is described within Options 8, Section 30(e) within Options 8,
Section 32 to bring greater transparency to the order types available
on the Trading Floor. This amendment is non-substantive as this order
type exists today.
    The Exchange notes that this proposal does not amend the System or
the manner in which Floor Trading members may submit orders to the
Trading Floor.
Options 8, Section 39
    The Exchange proposes to amend the All-or-None Order to refer to
Rule 1080(b)(5). As described herein, the remaining changes are
intended to conform the rule to a prior rule change that was
inadvertently amended.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The Exchange notes that other revisions are being made to
Options 8, Section 32(b)(3) that were made in a prior rule change.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85262 (March 7, 2019), 84 FR
9192 (SR-Phlx-2019-03) and were inadvertently revered in a
subsequent filing that did not capture the amended text. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85740 (April 29, 2019), 84 FR
19136 (SR-Phlx-2019-17). The Exchange is reinstating the changes
that were made in SR-Phlx-2019-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to update the cross-references, remove
reserved sections and re-number/re-letter its rules will bring greater
organization to the Rulebook.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose

any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
Order Types
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the distinction between
``agency'' and ``proprietary'' will apply uniformly to all market
participants in that it will not cause an undue burden on competition.
The change will not impact the manner in which member submit orders
into the System. The Exchange is not changing the manner in which
orders are being submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that
today no other options market segregates the submission of order types
by whether the order is an agency or proprietary order.
    The Exchange's proposal to replace the current rule text regarding
order types within Rule 1080(b) with a list of current order types will
not impose an undue burden on competition, rather it will bring greater
transparency to the Exchange's Rules. The order types listed within
Rule 1080 are available to all market participants except that All-or-
None Orders are available only to customers as provided today within
Rule 1078. Current Options 8, Section 32 describes the order types
available for trading on the Trading Floor of the Exchange. The order
types available within Phlx are the same regardless of whether the
order is entered electronically or through the Options Floor Broker
Management System.\120\ Additionally, these order types may be entered
in either the simple or complex Order Book. For these reasons, the
Exchange is simultaneously updating the descriptions of the order types
into Options 8, Section 32, 1080 and 1098 to ensure conformity among
these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See note 96 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eliminating the rule text for the following order types, ``or
better,'' ``simple cancel to reduce size (cancel leaves),'' ``cancel to
change price'' and ``possible duplicate orders,'' does not create an
undue burden on competition because the Exchange does not offer these
order types to any market participant today. The Exchange notes that it
believes market participants are aware of the current order types that
are accepted by the System. Currently, the rule provides a list of
order types within Options 8, Section 32 which describe the order types
for trading on the floor of the Exchange. The order types available
within Phlx are the same regardless of whether the order is entered
electronically or through the Options Floor Broker Management System.
Additionally, these order types may be entered in either the simple or
complex order books.
    Further, the Exchange is defining terms within Rule 1080(b) which
are already defined in the Rulebook, in some cases, for ease of
reference.\121\ The new descriptions of order types will provide
greater clarity regarding the operation of the System. The order types
within Rule 1080(b) do not add any new functionality but instead re-
organize the Exchange's order type rules to provide additional detail
regarding the order type functionality currently offered by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Opening Sweep is defined in Rule 1017(b)(i). QCC Order is
defined within Rule 1080(o). The PIXL Order is defined within Rule
1087. All-or-None Orders are defined within Rule 1078. A Legging
Order is defined within Rule 1098(f)(iii)(C). Directed Orders if
defined with Rule 1068. Do No Route Orders are defined within Rule
1093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The description of Market Order within proposed Rule 1080(b)(1) is
substantially similar to the description of Options 8 Section 32(a).
The description of a Limit Order within proposed 1080(b)(2) is
identical to the description within Options 8, Section 32(b). The ISO
description within proposed Rule 1080(b)(3) refers to current Rule 1083
and references the current behavior within PIXL pursuant to Rule 1087.
Finally, ISO behavior for the Opening Process is referenced within Rule
1017. The Exchange believes that describing the behavior of the ISO
Order within Rule 1080(b) does not impose an undue burden on
competition because this functionality exists today and is being
centralized within one description for ease of reference for members.
The Stop Order description proposed within Rule 1080(b)(4) is being
modified from the definition within Options 8, Section 32(c)(1) but the
Exchange believes the description is substantially similar.
    Adding a description for Non-Displayed Contingency Orders within
Rule 1080(b)(5) will enhance the Rulebook and allow the Exchange to
readily refer to these categories of orders within its rules. The All-
or-None Order description within proposed Rule 1080(b)(6) is identical
to Rule 1078.
    The Opening Sweep description is being revised to describe this
order type as an order and not a quote. The Exchange does not believe
this change imposes an undue burden on competition because an Opening
Sweep may only be entered by a Specialist or ROT as this order type is
submitted through the SQF protocol.\122\ Other market participants tag
orders for the Opening Process by placing a TIF of ``OPG'' on the order
as explained below. The Exchange notes that all members may submit
interest into the Opening Process. Further, the categorization has no
impact on the functionality on the manner in which members utilize the
Opening Sweep functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See Phlx Rule 1080(a)(i)(B) notes that (B) ``Specialized
Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that allows Specialists,
SQTs and RSQTs may submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to describe the Cancel-Replacement Order
within proposed Rule 1080(b)(7) is similar to the order type currently
described within Options 8, Section 32(c)(7). The Exchange's proposal
to add rule text that is not currently described within the existing
Rules to make clear when a loss of priority would occur when submitting
a Cancel-Replacement Order does not impose an undue burden on
competition.
    The Exchange's proposal to add TIFs to proposed Rule 1080(c) will
enhance the Exchange's Rulebook by including these order types to the
proposed set of Rules and providing additional transparency. The
Exchange proposal to add at Rule 1080(c)(1) of a Day Order does not
impose an undue burden on competition, rather it memorializes the
manner in which the System currently treats a TIF of ``Day'' thereby
adding transparency. The Exchange's proposal to describe an IOC Order
at proposed Rule 1080(c)(2) similar to Options 8 Section 32(c)(8), with
the addition of Market Order, and include new rule text to further
describe that in an electronic market the types of protocols that may
be utilized on Phlx to submit IOC Orders does not impose an undue
burden on competition. Further the Exchange proposes to note that IOC
orders submitted through SQF are not subject to the order protections
within Phlx Rule 1099, except for Automated Quotation Adjustments. The
Exchange notes that SQF is utilized by ROTs and Specialists, which
market participants are required to provide liquidity to the market and
are subject to certain obligations, including requirements to provide
two-sided quotes on a daily basis.\123\ ROTs and Specialists utilize
their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing
the likelihood of a ROT or Specialist order resulting from an error
from being entered. The Exchange believes that ROTs and Specialists,
unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk
when submitting IOC Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect
this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order
entry, particularly in light of the

quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See Phlx Rule 1091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to define an order with a TIF of ``Opening
Only'' within Rule 1080(c)(3) as an IOC Order that can be entered
during the Opening Process and note as new language to this order type
that this order type is not subject to the risk protection within Rule
1099, except for Automated Quotation Adjustment does not impose an
undue burden on competition as the limitation of order protections
within the Opening Process is noted within Rule 1099. The Exchange
notes that this TIF exists today but is being renamed. Finally, the
Exchange's proposal to memorialize a GTC Order within proposed Rule
1080(c)(4) will provide a description for a GTC Order that does not
exist today. The TIF is noted within current Rule 1080(b)(i) without a
description. This amendment will provide members with greater
transparency as to the TIFs which are available on Phlx.
    The Exchange's proposal to note the various routing strategies
within Rule 1080(d) will also add greater transparency to the
Exchange's rules. These routing strategies are already described within
Rule 1093 and will add greater transparency to this rule. The Exchange
is simply relocating the restrictions that are applicable today to Off-
Floor Broker Dealers to new Rule 1080(e) without any substantive
changes.
    The Exchange's proposal at Rule 1014(e) would permit ROTs and
Specialists to enter orders in their assigned and unassigned options
series, but limit a ROT or Specialist to not exceed 25 percent of the
total number of all contracts executed by the ROT or Specialist in
their unassigned options series in any calendar quarter, does not
impose an undue burden on competition, rather it provides ROTs and
Specialists with the ability to enter orders subject to the same
limitation that exists today on other options markets.\124\ Today, ROTs
and Specialists on Phlx may not enter orders in non-appointed option
series \125\ and further the Exchange requires, pursuant to Commentary
.01 to Rule 1014 that at least 50% of the trading activity in any
quarter (measured in terms of contract volume) of an ROT (other than an
RSQT) shall ordinarily be in classes of options to which he is
assigned. Proposed Rule 1014(e) does not impose an undue burden on
competition because unlike other market participants, ROTs and
Specialists continue to have obligations to quote intra-day \126\ and
in order to meet those obligations they will need to stay focused on
adding liquidity to Phlx. The Exchange believes that liquidity will not
be impacted on Phlx because the Exchange is permitting ROTs and
Specialists to enter more orders in appointed classes because ROTs and
Specialists may enter orders in non-appointed classes provided they do
not exceed 25% of the total number of contracts executed in any
quarter. The proposal will allow ROTs and Specialists to continue to
provide liquidity on Phlx, as is the case today, while not restricting
their business activity in a manner that is no other market
participants is restricted to transact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See note 109 above.
    \125\ Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii), SQTs and RSQTs may only trade in a
market making capacity in classes of options in which the SQT is
assigned.
    \126\ See Phlx Rule 1081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove a size limitation of 10 contracts
within current Rule 1080(b)(i)(B) and (C) pursuant to which certain
orders must be entered as IOC by ROTs and Specialists does not impose
an undue burden on competition, rather the Exchange believes the
provision unnecessarily hinders non-SQT ROTs and Specialists. ROTs and
Specialists are the only market participants with such a restriction.
The limitation is no longer necessary given the evolution of the market
place. No other options market has similar limitations today.\127\ The
10 contract limitation was put in place to restrict participants, whose
primary role was to provide liquidity, from using orders of small size
to avoid providing liquidity using quotes which were historically
required to be of a size of 10 contracts or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See note 32 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to make clear that Opening Sweeps within
Rule 1080(b)(6), COOP Sweeps, COLA Sweeps and CBOOK Sweeps within Rule
1098 are in fact orders and not quotations will bring greater clarity
to the Exchange's rules. The Exchange's proposal to describe these
sweeps as one-sided orders entered by a Specialist or ROT through SQF
instead of as one-sided quotations will make clear the type of interest
that these sweeps are for purposes of order entry. Phlx traditionally
has referred to all interest within the SQF protocol as quote interest
but this classification is not correct when distinguishing interest as
either a quote or order. The Exchange believes its proposal does not
impose any burden on competition because sweeps are orders today and
would be uniformly considered orders for all ROTs and Specialists. All
market participants may enter interest during the Opening Process. The
Exchange notes that the amending these sweep descriptions will align
sweeps in the proper category of interest as order interest to avoid
confusion.
    The Exchange's proposal to note the various routing strategies
within Rule 1080, and relocate the restrictions that are applicable
today to Off-Floor Broker Dealers to new Rule 1080(e) do not impose an
undue burden on competition, rather these changes add greater clarity
to the Exchange's Rules.
Outdated Systems
    Removing references to obsolete functionality within Rule 1080(c)-
(h) does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather it brings
greater clarity to the Exchange's rules. Today, no market participant
has access to the functionality which is proposed to be deleted.
Removing the obsolete functionality will make clear what is offered on
the Exchange. In addition, removing redundant text which is already
described elsewhere in the Rulebook will bring greater clarity to the
Rulebook. Removing obsolete and redundant rule text will bring greater
clarity to the Exchange's rules. With respect to Commentary .01(b) of
Rule 1080, the Exchange notes that it does not throttle as described in
this rule text. The Exchange notes that the language contained in
Commentary .01 to Rule 1080 refers to legacy functionality that existed
prior to the INET transition and does not reflect current
functionality. Today, the System automatically throttles and provides
equal access to the Order Book across all interfaces.
Rule 1000
    The Exchange's proposal to memorialize the defined term ``Order
Entry Firm'' within proposed Rule 1000(b)(38) will permit the term to
be utilized throughout the Rulebook.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend Rule 1000(b)(40) which is
currently reserved, to define the term ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' or
``ABBO'' to mean the displayed National Best Bid or Offer not including
the Exchange's Best Bid or Offer will add greater clarity to the
Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove the term ``Agency Order'' from
Rule 1000(b)(40) is consistent with the Act because this term is not
necessary or utilized elsewhere in the Rulebook other than without Rule
1080(b). The Exchange is revising Rule 1080(b) such that this term is
no longer required.

Rule 1098
    The Exchange's proposal to cross-reference proposed Rule 1080(c)
refer to the defined terms within Rule 1080(b) does not impose an undue
burden on competition because as noted herein both simple and complex
orders are similar for the order types defined within proposed Rule
1080(b). This amendment merely continues to conform those terms.
Options 8, Section 32
    The Exchange's proposal to re-number/re-letter Options 8, Section
32 is non-substantive. The Exchange's proposal to amend proposed Rule
1080(b)(3) to add further information to the All-or-None Order to align
the rule with proposed Rule 1080(b)(5), except with respect to the last
sentence of proposed Rule 1080(b)(5) which does not apply with respect
to Floor Trading does not impose an undue burden on competition, rather
the amendment adds clarity to the Rule and brings greater transparency
to the distinctions between electronic and Floor Trading where those
distinctions exist.
    Adding a new TIF section to proposed Options 8, Section 32(c)
similar to proposed Rule 1080(c) will align those rules. Memorializing
a Day Order and a GTC Order will also make clear that those TIFs are
available today on the Trading Floor. Those TIFs are available today
and are not included within Options 8, Section 32.
    Finally, the Exchange seeks to memorialize the Floor QCC Order
which is described within Options 8, Section 30(e) within Options 8,
Section 32 to bring greater transparency to the order types available
on the Trading Floor. This amendment is non-substantive as this order
type exists today. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not amend
the System or the manner in which Floor Trading members may submit
orders to the Trading Floor.
Options 8, Section 39
    The Exchange proposes to amend the All-or-None Order to refer to
Rule 1080(b)(5). As described herein, the remaining changes are
intended to conform the rule to a prior rule change that was
inadvertently amended.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ The Exchange notes that other revisions are being made to
Options 8, Section 32(b)(3) that were made in a prior rule change.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85262 (March 7, 2019), 84 FR
9192 (SR-Phlx-2019-03) and were inadvertently revered in a
subsequent filing that did not capture the amended text. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85740 (April 29, 2019), 84 FR
19136 (SR-Phlx-2019-17). The Exchange is reinstating the changes
that were made in SR-Phlx-2019-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Amendments
    The Exchange's proposal to update the cross-references, remove
reserved sections and re-number/re-letter its rules will bring greater
organization to the Rulebook.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \129\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \130\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2019-52 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-Phlx-2019-52. 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-Phlx-2019-52 and should be submitted on
or before January 3, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26841 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6468-6469]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

February 1, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER03-956-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Marketing America LLC submits that it
reassigned transmission capacity in October 2005 to the Bayside Power
LP.
    Filed Date: January 26, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060130-0288.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1371-001.
    Applicants: Caledonia Power I, L.L.C.
    Description: Cinergy Entities submits revised tariff sheets for
Caledonia Power I, L.L.C., in compliance with FERC's November 22, 2005
Order.
    Filed Date: January 26, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060130-0293.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-517-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
its long-term Standard Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and
January 19, 2006 filing submitting revised tariff sheets in Attachment
B.
    Filed Date: January 18, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060124-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-550-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits revisions to
their Transmission Owner Tariff, Grid Management Charge Pass-Through
Tariff and Scheduling Coordinator Services Tariff for Western Area
Power Administration.
    Filed Date: January 26, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060130-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-551-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
and Midwest ISO Transmission Owners submits revisions to Schedule 23.
    Filed Date: January 26, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060130-0321.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-552-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corp. submits an executed amendment to
the Generator Interconnection Agreement with United Materials of Great
Falls, Inc.
    Filed Date: January 26, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060130-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-554-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric & Power Co. submits its Rate
Schedule No. 134, updated revenue requirement for Reactive Supply and
Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service.
    Filed Date: January 27, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060131-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-557-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Co. submits a Power Purchase and Sale
Agreement with Phelps Dodge Energy Services, LLC and on January 31,
2006 an executed Certificate of Concurrence.

    Filed Date: January 27, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060131-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 17, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-560-000.
    Applicants: Credit Suisse Energy LLC.
    Description: Credit Suisse Energy, LLC submits a Notice of
Succession as a result of a corporate name change.
    Filed Date: January 27, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060131-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 17, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1674 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Revenue component                     in 2016         in 2017         in 2018         in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses.....................      $4,677,518      $5,155,280      $5,965,599      $6,874,784
Total Target Pilot Compensation.................      12,066,226      14,983,335      17,271,765      18,354,237
Working Capital Fund............................         709,934         837,766         869,078         943,564
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge.........      17,453,678      20,976,381      24,106,442      26,172,585
Surcharge.......................................       1,650,000       1,350,000       1,050,000       1,050,000
Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge............      19,103,678      22,326,381      25,156,442      27,222,585
% Increase from 2016 Total Revenue..............  ..............             17%             32%             42%
U.S. Pilotage Cost as Percentage of the Total               9.8%           11.3%           12.6%           13.4%
 Voyage Costs...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2016 to 2019, the total revenues needed would increase by 42
percent. While the change in total voyage cost would vary by the trip,
vessel class, and whether the vessel is carrying steel or grain, we
used these percentages as an average increase to estimate the change in
the impact. When we increased the 2016 base pilotage charges by 32
percent, we found the U.S. pilotage costs represented an average of
12.6 percent of the total voyage costs for 2018. To look at the
percentage of the total voyage costs for 2019, we then increased the
base 2016 rates by 42 percent. With this proposed rule's rates for
2019, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 13.4 percent of the
total voyage costs, or a 0.8 percent increase over the percentage that
U.S. pilotage costs represented of the total voyage in 2018.
    It is important to note that this analysis is based on a number of
assumptions. The purpose of the study was to look at the impact of the
U.S. pilotage rates. The study did not include an analysis of the GLPA
rates. It was assumed that a U.S. pilot is assigned to all portions of
a voyage where he or she could be assigned. In reality, the assignment
of a United States or Canadian pilot is based on the order in which a
vessel enters the system, as outlined in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the GLPA and the Coast Guard.
    This analysis only looks at the impact of proposed U.S. pilotage
cost changes. All other costs were held constant at the 2016 levels,
including Canadian pilotage costs, tolls, stevedoring, and port
charges. This analysis estimates the impacts of Great Lakes pilotage
rates holding all other factors constant. If other factors or sectors
were not held constant but, instead, were allowed to adjust or
fluctuate, it is likely that the impact of pilotage rates would be
different. Many factors that drive the tonnage levels of foreign cargo
on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway were held constant for this
analysis. These factors include, but are not limited to, demand for
steel and grain, construction levels in the regions, tariffs, exchange
rates, weather conditions, crop production, rail and alternative route
pricing, tolls, vessel size restriction on the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Seaway, and inland waterway river levels.
Benefits
    This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the
requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage
services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes would promote safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by: (1)
Ensuring that rates cover an association's operating expenses; (2)
providing fair pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient
rest periods for pilots; and (3) ensuring the association produces
enough revenue to fund future improvements. The rate changes would also
help recruit and retain pilots, which would ensure a sufficient number
of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, helping to reduce delays caused
by pilot shortages.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
    For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS, and we reviewed
business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources
such as MANTA \27\ and ReferenceUSA.\28\ As described in Section VIII.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total
of 448 unique vessels used pilotage services from 2015 through 2017.
These vessels are owned by 57 entities. We found that of the 57
entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great
Lakes affected by this proposed rule, 47 are foreign entities that
operate primarily outside the United States. The remaining 10 entities
are U.S. entities. We compared the revenue and employee data found in
the company search to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Table
of Small Business Size Standards \29\ to determine how many of these
companies are small entities. Table 36 shows the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the U.S. entities and
the small entity standard size established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See http://www.manta.com/.
    \28\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/.
    \29\ Source: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-standards. SBA has established a Table of Small
Business Size Standards, which is matched to NAICS industries. A
size standard, which is usually stated in number of employees or
average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the largest size
that a business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be
considered in order to remain classified as a small business for SBA
and Federal contracting programs.

         Table 36--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Small business size
            NAICS                  Description            standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
238910......................  Site Preparation      $15 million.
                               Contractors.
483211......................  Inland Water Freight  750 employees.
                               Transportation.
487210......................  Scenic & Sightseeing  $7.5 million.
                               Transportation,
                               Water.
488330......................  Navigational          $38.5 million.
                               Services to
                               Shipping.
488510......................  Freight               $15 million.
                               Transportation
                               Arrangement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for
small businesses. Furthermore, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged
vessels and are not required to have pilots as required by 46 U.S.C.
9302.
    In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this
proposed rule, there are three U.S. entities that would be affected by
this proposed rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These
are the three pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage
services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations
operate as partnerships, and one operates as a corporation. These
associations are designated with the same NAICS industry classification
and small-entity size standards described above, but they have fewer
than 500 employees; combined, they have approximately 65 employees in
total, and therefore, they are designated as small entities. We expect
no adverse effect on these entities from this proposed rule because all
associations would receive enough revenue to balance the projected
expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours (time on
task) and pilots.
    We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
that would be impacted by this proposed rule. We did not find any small
governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000 people
that would be impacted by this proposed rule. Based on this analysis,
we conclude this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect
a substantial number of small entities.
    Therefore, we certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please
submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies, and how
and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Brian Rogers,
Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected], or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.
    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).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This
proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently
approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes
Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    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 proposed rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as
described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services.'' See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this
category. Therefore, this proposed rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

F. 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. Although this

proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss
the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, and the Administrator of OMB's Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Directive 023-01, Revision (Rev) 01, Implementation of
the National Environmental Policy Act [DHS Instruction Manual 023-01
(series)] and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this
preamble. This proposed rule meets the criteria for categorical
exclusion (CATEX) under paragraph A3 of table 1, particularly subparts
(a), (b), and (c) in Appendix A of DHS Directive 023-01(series). CATEX
A3 pertains to promulgation of rules and procedures that are: (a)
Strictly administrative or procedural in nature; (b) that implement,
without substantive change, statutory or regulatory requirements; or
(c) that implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals,
and other guidance documents. This proposed rule adjusts base pilotage
rates and surcharges for administering the 2019 shipping season in
accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates, and also
proposes a technical change to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking
methodology. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303,
9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).

0
2. Amend Sec.  401.405 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Pilotage rates and charges

    (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on--
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $698;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $492;
    (3) Lake Erie is $530;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$632;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $304; and
    (6) The St. Mary's River is $602.
* * * * *

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
3. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f)

Sec.  404.104  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  404.104(c) by removing the reference to Sec.  404.103(d)
and adding in its place a reference to Sec.  404.103.

    Dated: October 11, 2018.
Jennifer F. Williams,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy .
[FR Doc. 2018-22513 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15240-15241]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2015-0099; OMB Control Number 1625-0069]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0069, Ballast Water
Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S. Waters. Our ICR
describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before
submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as
described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0099] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE STOP 7710,
WASHINGTON DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval
of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0099], and
must be received by May 22, 2015. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2015-0099], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2015-0099'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2015-0099'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.
    Summary: This collection requires the master of a vessel to provide
information that details the vessel operator's ballast water management
efforts.
    Need: The information is needed to ensure compliance with 16 U.S.C.
4711 and the requirements in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D
regarding the management of ballast water, to prevent the introduction
and spread of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters. The
information is also used for research and periodic reporting to
Congress.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 60,961 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief Information Officer, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2015-06584 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P