[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72740-72744]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28845]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70945; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-142]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify a Level 2 Subscriber Fee

November 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 14, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify the NASDAQ Level 2 Professional
Subscriber fee set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7023(b)(1)(B). NASDAQ will
implement the proposed revised fee on January 1, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are bracketed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC found at http://NASDAQomx.cchwallstreet.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

7023. NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data

    (a) No change.
    (b) Subscriber Fees.
    (1) NASDAQ Level 2
    (A) No change.
    (B) Professional Subscribers pay a monthly fee of $4[0]5 each for
Display Usage based upon Direct or Indirect Access, or for Non-Display
Usage based upon Indirect Access only;
    (C)-(E) No change.
    (2)-(4) No change.
    (c)-(e) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing a change to modify the NASDAQ Level 2
Professional Subscriber fee (``Level 2 fee'') as set forth in NASDAQ
Rule 7023(b)(1)(B). NASDAQ Rule 7023(b)(1)(B) currently provides for a
monthly fee of $40 for Professional Subscribers each for any Display
Usage based upon Direct or Indirect Access, or for Non-Display Usage
based upon Indirect Access only. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes to
increase this display fee from $40 per month to $45 per month. NASDAQ
Level 2 Non-Professional Subscriber fees will remain unchanged.
    The NASDAQ Level 2 product is completely optional. NASDAQ has
enhanced this product through capacity upgrades and regulatory data
sets over the last approximately 30 years, but has only once increased
the associated Professional Subscriber fee.\4\ During this time period,
the network capacity for NASDAQ Level 2 has increased from a 56 Kb feed
in 1983 to the current 30 Mb feed. Additionally, since NASDAQ Level 2
is also used for market making functions, NASDAQ has invested over the
years to add regulatory data sets, such as Market Maker Mode and
Trading Action status. Such investments are expected to continue in
2014 by the addition of enhanced Symbol Directory and IPO messaging, as
well as latency monitoring tools to the feed. Aside from the one other
Level 2 Subscriber fee change previously mentioned, the only other
usage fee change NASDAQ has made in the last approximately 30 years was
to add a Non-Professional fee option for NASDAQ Level 2, which is
widely used by online brokerage firms today. As noted above, this
increase represents only the second Professional Subscriber price
change for display usage of NASDAQ Level 2 user fees since its
introduction in 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68493 (December 20,
2012), 77 FR 76574 (December 28, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-133).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers and
recipients of NASDAQ data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between them. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission
granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased
authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the
public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of
data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition
for the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by lessening the
regulation of the market in proprietary data--would itself further the
Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their

own internal analysis of the need for such data.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers (``BDs'') at all, it follows that the price at which
such data is sold should be set by the market as well. Level 2 is
precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') rule proposals establishing or changing dues,
fees, or other charges are immediately effective upon filing regardless
of whether such dues, fees, or other charges are imposed on members of
the SRO, non-members, or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph
(C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any
time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of filing of such a
proposed rule change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)
[of Section 19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
the change in the rules of the self-regulatory organization made
thereby, 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 this title. If the
Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine
whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.''
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (``NetCoalition I''), upheld the Commission's reliance upon
competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for
market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoaltion I, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the
U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition I, at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, NASDAQ believes that the proposed fee
is fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act. As described above, the proposed fee is based on pricing
conventions and distinctions that exist in NASDAQ's current fee
schedule, and the fee schedules of other exchanges. These distinctions
(top-of-book versus Depth-of-Book, Professional versus non-Professional
Subscribers, Direct versus Indirect Access, Internal versus External
Distribution) are each based on principles of fairness and equity that
have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or greater
force to the current proposal.
    As described in greater detail below, if NASDAQ has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can diminish or
discontinue the use of their data because the proposed product is
entirely optional to all parties. NASDAQ can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. NASDAQ
continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing
fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.
    NASDAQ believes that periodically it must adjust the Depth-of-Book
Subscriber fees to reflect market forces. Given that this fee change
represents only the second Professional Subscriber price change for
display usage of NASDAQ Level 2 user fees since its introduction in
1983, NASDAQ believes it is an appropriate time to adjust this fee to
more accurately reflect the investments made to enhance this product
through capacity upgrades and regulatory data sets added. This also
reflects that the market for this Depth-of-Book information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. NASDAQ
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end Subscribers only
insofar as they provide information that end Subscribers expect will
assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the

revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's customers view the costs of transaction
executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the
exchange. A broker-dealer will direct orders to a particular exchange
only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange
exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those
of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product
of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If
the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer
will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to
direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product
to that broker-dealer decreases, for two reasons. First, the product
will contain less information, because executions of the broker-
dealer's orders will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the
broker-dealer is directing orders will become correspondingly more
valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition,
at 24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow
implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker-
dealers with order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by
directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer
that shifted its order flow from one platform to another in response to
order execution price differentials would both reduce the value of that
platform's market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the
disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data
fees, the change will affect the overall cost of doing business with
the platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can
lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby
lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing
BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''),
including dark pools and electronic communication networks (``ECNs'').
Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities
(``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction reports.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC,
NYSE Arca LLC, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and Direct Edge.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing Depth-of-Book data on the Internet. Second, because a single
order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a
non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end Subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end Subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes

trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the
business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the
same: they can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product
that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of
proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying
business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary
data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
Depth-of-Book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
NASDAQ believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow.
    Competition among platforms has driven NASDAQ continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, NASDAQ has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. NASDAQ offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. NASDAQ has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView ITCH and/
Level 2, because offering data in multiple formatting allows NASDAQ to
better fit customer needs. NASDAQ offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. NASDAQ has developed an online administrative system to
provide customers transparency into their data feed requests and
streamline data usage reporting. NASDAQ has also expanded its
Enterprise License options that reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, NASDAQ's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as
a percent of total Subscriber costs, NASDAQ data fees have fallen
relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth, programming,
and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true for execution
services; despite numerous enhancements to NASDAQ's trading platform,
absolute and relative trading costs have declined. Platform competition
has intensified as new entrants have emerged, constraining prices for
both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for Depth-of-Book information is
significant and the Exchange believes that this proposal itself clearly
evidences such competition. NASDAQ is increasing the fee in order to
keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs.
This product is entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new
customers, as well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
NASDAQ continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with NASDAQ or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this Depth-of-Book information is
highly competitive and continually evolves as products develop and
change.

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

Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-142 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-142. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-142, and should be submitted on or before
December 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28845 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38661-38663]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0427]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships; Lake
Erie, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of Lake Erie during the USA Triathlon Age Group National
Championships. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a
portion of Lake Erie off of Edgewater Park during the USA Triathlon Age
Group National Championships. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect participants and spectators during the event from the
hazards associated with a large scale swimming event. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:45 a.m. August 10, 2018 until
12:15 p.m. August 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0427 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 26, 2018 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) titled USA Triathlon Age Group National
Championships; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH (83 FR 29721). There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to this swim event. During the comment period that ended
July 26, 2018 we received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
large-scale swim event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant
risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is necessary to
protect participants and spectators during the USA Triathlon Age Group
National Championships.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and The Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published June
26, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on
August 10, 2018, from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 2018, and
from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018. The safety zone will
cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie, off of Edgewater Park,
Cleveland OH, inside an area starting on shore at position
41[deg]29'16'' N, 081[deg]44'49'' W then Northwest to 41[deg]29'34'' N,
081[deg]45'02'' W then Northeast to 41[deg]29'43'' N, 081[deg]44'31'' W
then Southeast back to shore at position 41[deg]29'28'' N,
081[deg]44'22'' (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to
enhance the safety of vessels and swimmers on these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled events over the course of the
three days.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The Captain

of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this
rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to
allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone is
located off a beach where there are normally swimmers. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of
the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive
Order13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 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 determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves establishment of a safety zone. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0427 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0427   Safety Zone; USA Triathlon Age Group National
Championships; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Erie, off of Edgewater Park, Cleveland OH, inside an area starting on
shore at position 41[deg]29'16'' N, 081[deg]44'49'' W then Northwest to
41[deg]29'34'' N, 081[deg]45'02'' W then Northeast to 41[deg]29'43'' N,
081[deg]44'31'' W, and Southeast back to shore at position
41[deg]29'28'' N, 081[deg]44'22'' (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9:45 a.m.
until 1:45 p.m. on August 10, 2018, from 5:00 a.m. until 5:45 p.m. on
August 11, 2018, and from 5:00 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on August 12,
2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 2, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-16844 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8519]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4255-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Texas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4255-DR), dated February 9, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 9, 2016, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Texas resulting from severe winter storms, tornadoes, straight-
line winds, and flooding during the period of December 26, 2015 to
January 21, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Texas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Bailey, Castro, Childress, Cochran, Dallas, Deaf Smith, Dickens,
Ellis, Hall, Hardeman, Harrison, Henderson, Hopkins, Kaufman, Kent,
King, Lamb, Lubbock, Navarro, Parmer, Rains, Red River, Rockwall,
Titus, and Van Zandt Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Texas are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-03452 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31325-31327]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2016]

Epidermolysis Bullosa: Developing Drugs for Treatment of
Cutaneous Manifestations; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Epidermolysis Bullosa: Developing Drugs for Treatment of Cutaneous
Manifestations.'' The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors
with the development of drugs for treatment or prevention of the
serious cutaneous manifestations of the heterogeneous group of
disorders collectively known as epidermolysis bullosa (EB). This
guidance focuses on drug development

and trial design issues specific to the treatment of EB, including
FDA's current thinking on clinical trial endpoint considerations. There
is not yet sufficient clinical trial experience to establish definitive
endpoints. This guidance incorporates the comments received for and
finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on June 18, 2018.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-2016 for ``Epidermolysis Bullosa: Developing Drugs for
Treatment of Cutaneous Manifestations.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of
Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Gould, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5166, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-4224; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Epidermolysis Bullosa: Developing Drugs for Treatment of
Cutaneous Manifestations.'' The purpose of this guidance is to assist
sponsors with the development of drugs for treatment or prevention of
the serious cutaneous manifestations of the heterogeneous group of
disorders collectively known as EB. This guidance focuses on drug
development and trial design issues specific to the treatment of EB,
including FDA's current thinking on endpoint considerations. There is
not yet sufficient clinical trial experience to establish definitive
endpoints. This guidance incorporates the comments received for and
finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on June 18, 2018
(83 FR 28240). All the public comments received on the draft guidance
have been considered, and the guidance has been revised as appropriate
along with a few editorial changes.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Epidermolysis Bullosa: Developing Drugs
for Treatment of Cutaneous Manifestations.'' It does not establish any
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to
Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that

are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0014.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-13969 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49434-49437]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21231]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84284; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule 6.15-O Regarding the Give Up of
a Clearing Member by OTP Holders and OTP Firms and Conforming Changes
to Rule 6.46-O

September 25, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 11, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.15-O regarding the Give Up
of a Clearing Member by OTP Holders and OTP Firms and proposes
conforming changes to Rule 6.46-O. The proposed change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify Rule 6.15-O regarding the
Give Up of a Clearing Member \4\ by OTP Holders and OTP Firms (each an
``OTP,'' collectively, ``OTPs'') and to make conforming changes to Rule
6.46-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 6.1-O(2) defines ``Clearing Member'' as an Exchange OTP
which has been admitted to membership in the Options Clearing
Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Options
Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 6.15-O: Current Process to Give Up a Clearing Member
    In 2015 the Exchange adopted its current ``give up'' procedure for
OTPs executing transactions on the Exchange.\5\ Per Rule 6.15-O, an OTP
may give up a ``Designated Give Up'' or its ``Guarantor,'' as defined
in the Rule and described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 75641 (August 7,
2015), 80 FR 48577 (August 13, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Designated Give Up'' as any Clearing Member that
an OTP Holder (other than a Market Maker \6\) identifies to the
Exchange, in writing, as a Clearing Member the OTP requests the ability
to give up. To designate a ``Designated Give Up,'' an OTP must submit
written notification to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange uses a
standardized form (``Notification Form''). An OTP may currently
designate any Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally,
there is no minimum or maximum number of Designated Give Ups that an
OTP must identify. Similarly, should an OTP no longer want the ability
to give up a particular Designated Give Up, the OTP informs the
Exchange in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of this rule, references to ``Market Maker''
refer to OTPs acting in the capacity of a Market Maker and include
all Exchange Market Maker capacities e.g., Lead Market Makers. As
explained below, Market Makers give up Guarantors that have executed
a Letter of Guarantee on behalf of the Marker Maker, pursuant to
Rule 6.36-O; Market Makers need not give up Designated Give Ups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.15-O also requires that the Exchange notify a Clearing
Member, in writing and as soon as practicable, of each OTP that has
identified it as a Designated Give Up. However, the Exchange will not
accept any instructions from a Clearing Member to prohibit an OTP from
designating the Clearing Member as a Designated Give Up. Additionally,
there is no subjective evaluation of an OTP's list of Designated Give
Ups by the Exchange. The Rule does, however, provide that a Designated
Give Up may determine to not accept a trade on which its name was given
up so long as it believes in good faith that it has a valid reason not
to accept the trade.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.15-O(f)(1) (setting forth procedures for
rejecting a trade). An example of a valid reason to reject a trade
may be that the Designated Give Up does not have a customer for that
particular trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule defines ``Guarantor'' as a Clearing Member that has issued
a Letter of Guarantee or Letter of Authorization for the executing OTP,
pursuant to Rules of the Exchange \8\ that is in effect at the time of
the execution of the applicable trade. An executing OTP may give up its
Guarantor without such Guarantor being a ``Designated Give Up.''
Additionally, Rule 6.36 provides that a Letter of Guarantee is required
to be issued and filed by each Clearing Member through which a Market
Maker clears transactions. Accordingly, a Market Maker is enabled to
give up only a Guarantor that had executed a Letter of Guarantee on its
behalf pursuant to Rule 6.36-O; a Market Maker does not need to
identify any Designated Give Ups. Like Designated Give Ups, Guarantors
likewise have the ability to reject a trade.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 6.36-O (Letters of Guarantee); Rule 6.45-O (Letters
of Authorization).
    \9\ See Rule 6.15-O(f)(2) (providing that a Guarantor may
``change the give up to another Clearing Member that has agreed to
be the give up on the subject trade, provided such Clearing Member
has notified the Exchange and the executing OTP Holder or OTP Firm
in writing of its intent to accept the trade'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in early 2018, certain Clearing Firms (in conjunction
with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'')) expressed concerns related to the process by which
executing brokers on U.S. options exchanges (the ``Exchanges'') are
allowed to designate or `give up' a clearing firm for purposes of
clearing particular transactions. The SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members
indicated that the Federal Reserve has recently identified the current
give-up process as a significant source of risk for clearing firms.
SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Members subsequently requested that the
Exchanges alleviate this risk by amending Exchange rules governing the
give up process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') recently filed to amend its
give up procedure to require CBOE Trading Permit Holders (each a
``TPH'') to receive written authorization from a Clearing TPH
(``CTPH'') before it may give up that CTPH. See Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 83872 (August 17, 2018), 83 FR 42751
(August 23, 2018) (SR-CBOE-2018-55). The Exchange's proposal leads
to the same result of providing Clearing Members the ability to
control risk, but it differs in process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rules 6.15-O and 6.46-O
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.15-O to provide a means for a
Designated Give Up to opt out of acting as the give up for certain
OTPs. As proposed, Rule 6.15-O b)(4) would be revised to provide that
the Exchange would ``accept instruction from a Clearing Member not to
permit an OTP to designate the Clearing Member as the Designated Give
Up.'' The Exchange further proposes to add language to Rule 6.15-
O(b)(7) to provide that ``[i]f a Clearing Member no longer wants to be
a Designated Give Up of a particular [OTP], the Clearing Member must
notify the Exchange, in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.''
In practice, a Clearing Member that has been designated as the
Designated Give Up need only tell the Exchange that it refuses this
designation.
    Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to
amend Rule 6.46-O(g) regarding the responsibilities of Floor Brokers to
maintain error accounts ``for the purposes of correcting bona fide
errors, as provided in Rule 6.14-O.'' As proposed, the Exchange would
specify that ``it will not be a violation of this provision if a trade
is transferred away from an error account through the CMTA process at
OCC.'' \11\ This additional language would enable an executing OTP that
has executed an order to CMTA that order through its own clearing
relationship. For example, assume a Floor Broker executes a trade
giving up Firm A (a Clearing Member that is one of its Designated Give
Ups) and, after the execution, the Floor Broker is informed that a
portion of the trade needs to be changed to give-up Firm B (a Clearing
Member that is not

one of the Floor Broker's Designated Give Ups). The proposed language
would enable the Floor Broker to CMTA the trade to Firm B through its
own clearing arrangement (i.e., error account/Letter of Authorization)
rather than nullifying or busting the trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Rule 6.46-O(g). The Exchange also proposes to
delete as obsolete reference to Rule 4.21-O, which is currently
``Reserved,'' and therefore an outdated cross-reference. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change via Trader Notice, to be published no later than
thirty (30) days following Commission approval. The implementation date
will be no later than sixty (60) days following Commission approval.
This additional time would afford the Exchange and OTP the time to make
any changes current give up designations.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \12\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, as discussed above, several Clearing Firms affiliated
with SIFMA have recently expressed concerns relating to the current
give up process that permits OTPs to identify any Clearing Members as a
Designated Give Up for purposes of clearing particular transactions.
Also as noted above, the Clearing Members have relayed that the Federal
Reserve has recently identified the current give-up process (i.e., a
process that lacks authorization) as a significant source of risk for
clearing firms. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule
6.15-O would help alleviate this risk by enabling Clearing Members to
refuse to act as a Designated Give Up for certain OTPs, which would
afford Clearing Members a measure of control. The Exchange believes its
proposal addresses concerns raised by Clearing Members, while
maintaining the basic give up process. The Exchange does not anticipate
Clearing Members to routinely refuse the role of Designated Give Up,
but rather to utilize this option only when there is a valid reason and
good faith basis to do so. The Exchange notes that Clearing Member
would still have the ability to reject trades on an ad hoc basis for
OTPs for which it has not refused to be a Designated Give Up.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
reasonable and continues to provide certainty that a Clearing Member
would be responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to Rule 6.46-O
would protect investors because it would permit an executing OTP to
utilize its error account to CMTA an order through its own clearing
relationship. This would preserve executions while accommodating the
proposed rule change that could result in an executing OTP not being
permissioned to for a particular give-up.
    Thus, this proposal would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change would impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly
situated OTPs. The Exchange also notes that, should the proposed
changes make the Exchange more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become OTPs
on the Exchange to take advantage of the trading opportunities.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2018-68 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-NYSEArca-2018-68. 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-NYSEArca-2018-68, and

should be submitted on or before October 22, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21231 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 TELECON Call To: John Van Soestbergen, Water Permit Manager Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( 804) 698  4117 Call From: Jill Lucy, ERG, Inc. Project: Office of Water's Engineering and Analysis Division  304M Support: Detailed Investigation of Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ( Charge # 0<IP_ADDRESS>) Date: October 23, 2003 Subject: Information on State Permitting of Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals Background The purpose of the call was to gather the following information for petroleum bulk stations and terminals:

° Wastewater sources and discharge volumes; ° Common wastewater problems state has encountered; ° Current state permitting practices; ° Site wastewater treatment, pollution prevention, and recovery practices; ° Discharge status; ° Obtain available permits, fact sheets, and data; and ° Identify PBSTs for site visits.

Call Summary I spoke with John Van Soestbergen ( Water Permit Manager for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) to discuss his state's current permitting practice for PBSTs and to gather general information on wastewater discharges from the industry ( see Background above).

Mr. Van Soestbergen did not know of any sites to visit off hand, but will check on. In addition, he said he could look into any wastewater problems his state has with PBST facilities.

Virginia has a general storm water permit for industrial runoff ( no PBST industry specific permits). Process wastewater discharges are permitted by seven regional offices located throughout the state. The headquarters provides general guidelines for permitting, but the regional offices develop the site specific permits and evaluate compliance with permits. 2 Telecon  October 23, 2003 I asked Mr. Van Soestbergen if it would be best to send him a list of questions via e mail for him to review and possibly forward to regional office personnel for more information. He thought that would be best since he would not be able to answer a lot of industry specific questions off the top of his head. His e mail address is: jvansoest@ deq. state. va. us.

The e mail sent October 24, 2003 is attached to this telecon. 3 Telecon  October 23, 2003 Attachment: E mail From: Jill Lucy To: jvansoest@ deq. state. va. us Date: Friday  October 24, 2003 8: 34 AM Subject: Questions on Wastewater Discharges from PBST sites Dear Mr. Van Soestbergen,

As discussed in our phone call yesterday, here are the questions concerning wastewater dischargers from petroleum bulk stations and terminals ( PBSTs). You do not need to find answers to every question, but any information would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if you have any available permits or fact sheets for PBST sites that you could send me ( either by mail or electronically), that would be great. I would appreciate any concentration or pollutant loading data for PBST sites that your state has ( either treated or untreated wastewater data).

In addition, we are hoping to visit a couple of PBST sites to tour their facility and learn about any wastewater treatment and discharge practices common to the industry. If you know of any good sites to visit, that would be great. We are hoping to do that as soon as possible so if you identify any sites, please let me know.

Please give me a call ( 757 301 2076) or send me an e mail ( jill. lucy@ erg. com) if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Thank you very much for your time.   Jill Wastewater Problems 1. Does your state have any common wastewater problems at PBST sites ( e. g., discharge of untreated wastewater, storm water contamination, exceeding permit/ pretreatment limits) or major incidents where discharges from PBSTs caused damage to the property or environment?

If yes, are there certain factors ( e. g., type of product, type of tank, tank material, tank age) that tend to cause the most wastewater problems?

2. Are there any publicly owned treatment works ( POTW) interference problems caused by wastewater discharges from PBSTs ( e. g., exceeding limits, inhibiting treatment due to high pollutant concentrations)? 4 Telecon  October 23, 2003 Types of Discharge 3. Do you have an idea for the number ( or percent) of PBST sites that are: A. Direct dischargers; B. Indirect dischargers; and C. No discharge sites.

4. Do you have any information on the discharge volume from this industry ( on an industry and/ or per site basis)?

If yes, how does this industries discharges compare to other industries?

5. How is no discharge achieved by PBSTs ( e. g., contract haul contaminated water, reuse/ recycle)?

Wastewater Sources and Pollutants 6. What wastewater sources and pollutants are you most concerned with for this industry? What wastewater sources and pollutants have permit limits currently?

Treatment and Pollution Prevention at PBST Facilities 7. Is the wastewater typically treated prior to discharge? Are only certain wastewater streams treated ( if so, which ones)?

8. What percentage of PBST facilities have on site wastewater treatment plants? What types of on site treatment facilities are common at petroleum bulk stations and terminals ( e. g., oil/ water separation)?

9. What types of off site treatment facilities are used to treat wastewater from PBSTs?

10. What types of pollution prevention/ recovery practices are performed at petroleum bulk stations and terminals?

Permits 11. How are NPDES permit limits developed ( e. g., wastewater treatment technology, water quality standards, etc.)?

12. Do you have any information available on the annual number and/ or annual cost of permits or permit modifications for the PBST industry? How does this compare to other industries? 5 Telecon  October 23, 2003 13. How many PBST inspections occur on average each year for your statee? How does this compare to the number of inspections performed for other industries?

14. What percentage of PBST sites have a storm water discharge permit? For your state, what are the permit requirements?

15. How have other EPA regulations ( e. g., storm water, Clean Air Act, and Spill Prevention Countermeasures and Controls regulations) affected wastewater discharges?

Jill M. Lucy Chemical Engineer ERG, Inc. ( 757) 301 2076 jill. lucy@ erg. com


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:The language in the proposed regulations raise far too many questions and the allotted time for comment is inadequate.  I am requesting that the be extended to 180 days.