[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47221-47229]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20193]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84098; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2018-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Options Rules To Make Certain Non-Substantive Changes and To Harmonize
Certain Rules With Those of Its Affiliate, NYSE American LLC

September 12, 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 August 31, 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 amend its options rules to make certain
non-substantive changes and to harmonize certain rules with those of
its affiliate, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''), to reduce
unnecessary complexity and promote standardization. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its options rules to make certain
non-substantive changes and to harmonize certain rules with those of
its affiliate, NYSE American. The proposed amendments are designed to
reduce unnecessary complexity within the Exchange's rules and to
promote standardization and clarity amongst similar rules of the
Exchange and its affiliate, NYSE American. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to:
     Make a ministerial, non-substantive change to Exchange
Rule 6.17-O, Commentary .01.
     harmonize Exchange Rule 6.37-O, Obligations of Market
Makers, with NYSE American Rule 925NY, Obligations of Market Makers,
and make related changes to Exchange Rules 6.37A-O, 6.37B-O, and 6.37B-
O; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange also proposes to update various cross-
references to these rules throughout the rulebook to reflect the
updated rule numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     delete the text of Exchange Rule 6.41-O, Market Maker
Marketing Reports;
     harmonize Exchange Rule 6.43-O, Options Floor Broker
Defined, with NYSE American Rule 930NY by replacing the term
``Professional Customer'' with ``Qualified Customer''; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81670 (September 21,
2017), 82 FR 45095 (September 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEAMER-2017-18)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as Described Herein,
To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote Standardization and
Clarity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amend Exchange Rule 6.47-O, Crossing Orders, to update the
references to the current Order Protection Rule and harmonize it with
NYSE American Rule 934NY; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     harmonize Exchange Rule 6.67-O(d)(2)(A) with NYSE American
Rule 955NY(d)(2)(A) by replacing an outdated reference to a required
timestamp synchronized to the ``NIST Clock'' with a reference to the
current operative Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT'') clock
synchronization rule; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     harmonize Exchange Rule 6.69-O(b)(iii) with NYSE American
Rule 957NY(b)(iii) by conforming the Exchange's rule governing the
priority of complex orders in open outcry to its rule governing
electronic complex orders; \8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     harmonize Exchange Rule 6.75-O, Priority and Order
Allocation Procedures--Open Outcry, with NYSE American Rules
963NY(d).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of these proposed changes are explained in detail below.
Exchange Rule 6.17-O. Verification of Compared Trades and
Reconciliation of Uncompared Trades
    The Exchange proposes to make ministerial, non-substantive changes
to Exchange Rule 6.17-O, Commentary .01 to remove superfluous language.
In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend the third paragraph of
Commentary .01 of Exchange Rule 6.17-O to remove the duplicative phrase
``or accessible via telephone or email''. The proposed deletion of this
phrase does not alter the meaning or application of Rule 6.17-O.
Exchange Rule 6.37-O, Obligations of Market Makers, and Exchange Rules
6.37A-O, 6.37B-O, and 6.37C-O
    The Exchange proposes to harmonize the Market Maker quoting
obligations set forth under Exchange Rule 6.37-O, Obligations of Market
Makers, with NYSE American Rule 925NY, Obligations of Market Makers,
and make related changes to Exchange Rules 6.37A-O, 6.37B-O, and 6.37C-
O. Exchange Rule 6.37-O sets forth the continuous quoting obligations
of Market Makers for options contracts to which they are appointed
pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.35-O. The Exchange proposes to delete the
text of Rule 6.37-O, except for paragraph (a), and replace it with the
relevant text from NYSE American Rule 925NY.\10\ The proposed rule
change would not result in an easing of the quoting obligations in
place on the Exchange. Instead, the proposed rule change would
harmonize the Market Maker obligations across the Exchange and its
affiliate, NYSE American, while requiring the same level of
obligations. Harmonized rules would provide investors, as well as those
that engage in market making activities on both the Exchange and NYSE
American, with standardized obligations and consistent rules across
both markets. A description of the proposed amendments are described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that paragraph (a) of Exchange Rule
6.37-O is identical to paragraph (a) of NYSE American Rule 925NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that current Exchange Rule 6.37-O sets forth
Market Maker obligations when quoting on the Trading Floor and Exchange
Rule 6.37A-O sets forth Market Maker obligations when quoting on the
NYSE Arca OX electronic trading system. Like NYSE American 925NY, the
obligations under amended Exchange Rule 6.37-O would apply equally to
Maker Makers on the Trading Floor and those quoting on the Exchange's
electronic trading system. The Exchange also notes that the current
text of Exchange Rule 6.37A-O is substantially similar to the text of
NYSE American Rule 925NY, which the Exchange propose to adopt herein.
Nonetheless, the proposed text would be more detailed than current Rule
6.37A-O by including detailed bid-ask differentials under paragraph
(b)(4) as well as provisions governing leaves of absence under proposed
Commentary .01. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the text of
Exchange Rule 6.37A-O and renumber Exchange Rules 6.37B-O as 6.37A-O
and 6.37C-O as 6.37B-O. The Exchange also proposes to update various
cross-references to these rules in Exchange Rules 6.33-O(a), 6.64-
O(b)(D) and (E), 6.82-O(c)(4), 10.12(h) and (k), and 10.16(e)(2) to
reflect the updated rule numbers.
    Proposed Paragraph (b), Obligations in Appointed Classes. Paragraph
(b) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would continue

to impose the continuous quoting obligations that a Market Maker is
expected to engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing
circumstances, in dealings for his own account when there exists, or it
is reasonably anticipated that there will exist, a lack of price
continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand for
a particular option contract, or a temporary distortion of the price
relationships between option contracts of the same class. Market Makers
would continue to be expected to perform the following activities in
the course of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
    Proposed paragraphs (1) through (3) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O(b)
would require Market Makers to: (1) Compete with other Market Makers to
improve the market in all series of options classes to which the Market
Maker is appointed; (2) make markets that will be honored for the
number of contracts entered into the System in all series of options
classes within the Market Maker's appointment; and (3) update market
quotations in response to changed market conditions in all series of
options classes within the Market Maker's appointment. Each of these
provisions mirror NYSE American Rule 925NY(b)(1) through (3).
    Current paragraphs (b)(1)(A) through (E) of Rule 6.37-O require
that Market Maker bids and/or offers create differences of no more
than: (A) .25 between the bid and the offer for each option contract
for which the bid is less than $2, (B) .40 where the bid is $2 or more
but does not exceed $5, (C) .50 where the bid is more than $5 but does
not exceed $10, (D) .80 where the bid is more than $10 but does not
exceed $20, and (E) $1 when the last bid is $20.01 or more, provided
that two Trading Officials may establish differences other than the
above for one or more series or classes of options. These provisions
would be set forth under new paragraph (b)(4)(A) through (E) of
Exchange Rule 6.37-O with one proposed change from the current Exchange
rule. Current paragraph (b)(1)(E) of Rule 6.37-O requires that Market
Maker bids and/or offers create differences of no more than $1 when the
last bid is $20.01 or more, provided that two Trading Officials may
establish differences other than the above for one or more series or
classes of options. Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(E) of Exchange Rule 6.37-
O would allow for one Trading Official, rather than two, to establish
differences for one or more series or classes of options. The Exchange
believes that requiring two Trading Officials to act in this scenario
is unnecessary and allowing a single Trading Official to act would
allow for a more efficient process, especially in cases where a
decision must be made quickly in light of fast moving market events.
The Exchange also notes that NYSE American Rule 925NY(b)(1)(E), the
rule it seeks to harmonize Exchange Rule 6.37-O, allows for a single
Trading Official to establish differences for one or more series or
classes of options. Each of these provisions would mirror NYSE American
Rule 925NY(b)(1)(A) through (E).
    Current paragraph (b)(1)(F) of Rule 6.37-O states that a Trading
Official may, with respect to options trading with a bid price less
than $2, establish bid-ask differentials that are no more than $0.50
wide (``double-width'') when the primary market for the underlying
security: (a) Reports a trade outside of its disseminated quote
(including any Liquidity Quote); or (b) disseminates an inverted quote.
The imposition of double-width relief must automatically terminate when
the condition that necessitated the double-width relief (i.e.,
condition (a) or (b)) is no longer present. Market Makers that have not
automated this process may not avail themselves of the relief provided
herein (i.e. they may not manually adjust prices). The Exchange notes
that NYSE American Rule 925NY does not contain a similar provision and,
therefore, the Exchange does not propose to carry over current
paragraph (b)(1)(F) of Rule 6.37-O to the harmonized rule. Furthermore,
the Exchange notes that this provision is not necessary because a
Trading Official would have the ability to widen differences for one or
more series or classes of options in such scenario pursuant to
paragraph (b)(4)(E) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O discussed above.
    Current paragraph (b)(1)(G) of Rule 6.37-O states that quotes given
in open outcry may not be quoted with $5 widths and instead must comply
with the legal width requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1)(A)-(F)
of Rule 6.37-O. This requirement would be moved to paragraph (b)(5) of
Rule 6.37-O and be rephrased to be harmonized with NYSE American Rule
925NY(b)(5) and would require that electronically submitted quotes to
the System during Core Trading Hours may not have a difference
exceeding $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the
bid. Paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 6.37-O would also provide that two
Trading Officials may establish quote width differences other than as
provided in paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 6.37-O for one or more option
series. This is consistent with NYSE American Rule 925NY(b)(5).
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the text of NYSE American Rule
925NY(b)(6) under proposed paragraph (b)(6) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O and
require that, in response to a call for a market from a Floor Broker, a
Market Maker may bid no more than $1 lower and/or offer no more than $1
higher than the last preceding transaction price for the particular
option contract. However, this standard would not ordinarily apply if
the price per share (or other unit of trading) of the underlying
security or Exchange-Traded Fund Share has changed since the last
preceding transaction for the particular option contract, in which
event a Market Maker may then bid no lower than or offer no more than
$1 plus the aggregate change in the price per share (or other unit of
trading) of the underlying security or Exchange-Traded Fund Share since
the time of the last preceding transaction for the particular option
contract. This provision would apply from one day's close to the next
day's opening and from one transaction to the next in intra-day
transactions. With respect to inter-day transactions, this provision
applies if the closing transaction occurred within one hour of the
close and the opening transaction occurred within one hour after the
opening. With respect to intra-day transactions, this provision applies
to transactions occurring within one hour of one another. A Trading
Official may waive the provisions of this paragraph in an index option
when the primary underlying securities market for that index is not
trading. Nothing in paragraph (b)(6) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would
alter the maximum bid/ask differentials established by paragraph
(b)(4)-(5) of Rule 6.37-O discussed above.
    Proposed Paragraph (c), Unusual Conditions--Opening Auction. The
Exchange proposes to adopt the text of NYSE American Rule 925NY(c)
under proposed paragraph (c) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O which would govern
quote width differentials where a Trading Official declares an Unusual
Market Condition during the opening auction. Current paragraph (b)(4)
of Exchange Rule 6.37-O discusses where a Trading Official may declare
a fast market and declare wider quote width differentials and these
provisions would be substantially similar to proposed paragraph (c) of
Exchange Rule 6.37-O. As proposed, if the Trading Official finds that
it in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market so
requires, he or she may declare that unusual market conditions exist in
a particular issue and allow Market Makers in that issue to make
auction bids and offers with spread differentials

of up to two times, or in exceptional circumstances, up to three times,
the legal limits permitted under proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O. In
making such determinations to allow wider markets, the Trading Official
should consider the following factors: (A) whether there is pending
news, a news announcement or other special events; (B) whether the
underlying security or Exchange-Traded Fund Share is trading outside of
the bid or offer in such security then being disseminated; (C) whether
OTP Holders and OTP Firms receive no response to orders placed to buy
or sell the underlying security; and (D) whether a vendor quote feed is
clearly stale or unreliable.
    Paragraph (c)(1) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would further require that
a Trading Official who declared the unusual market conditions to file a
report with Exchange Operations setting forth the relief granted, the
time and duration of such relief and the reasons behind declaring an
unusual market condition. This provision would mirror NYSE American
Rule 925NY(c)(1).
    Proposed Paragraph (d), In Classes of Option Contracts Other Than
Those to Which Appointed. Current Exchange Rule 6.37-O(c) governs a
Market Maker's activities in options classes in which it has not been
assigned pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.35-O. The Exchange proposes to
renumber paragraph (c) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O as paragraph (d) and
replace its text with that of NYSE American Rule 925NY(d). Proposed
paragraph (d) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would be substantially similar to
current paragraph (c). As proposed, Market Makers would continue to be
prohibited from engaging in transactions for an account in which they
have an interest that are disproportionate in relation to, or in
derogation of, the performance of their obligations as specified in
Rule 6.37-O with respect to the classes in their appointment. Whenever
Market Makers enter the trading crowd for a class of options in which
they do not hold an appointment, they must fulfill the obligations
established by Exchange Rule 6.37-O. In addition, when present anywhere
on the Trading Floor, with regard to all securities traded on the
Trading Floor, Market Makers are expected to undertake the obligations
specified in paragraph (b) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O discussed above in
response to a demand therefore from the Trading Official that the
performance of such obligations by other Market Makers requires
supplementation.
    Current paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) also prohibit Market Makers from
individually or as a group, intentionally or unintentionally,
dominating the market in option contracts of a particular class and
effecting purchases or sales on the floor of the Exchange except in a
reasonable and orderly manner. These provisions would be renumbered as
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) under Exchange Rule 6.37-O and would mirror
NYSE American Rule 925NY(d). The only difference from the current text
is that paragraph (d)(2) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would not specifically
reference the floor of the Exchange as the rule would apply equally to
all Market Makers, regardless of whether they are located on the floor
of the Exchange or engage in market making electronically from a
location off the Exchange floor.
    Current paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O would
not be carried over as part of the new rule. The Exchange notes that
these provision are outdated and are not included in the current NYSE
American Rule 925NY to which the Exchange seeks to harmonize its Market
Maker obligations. Paragraph (c)(1) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O currently
prohibits Market Makers from congregating in a particular class of
option contract. The purpose of this rule was to prevent Market Makers
from dominating the market for an option when options were listed and
traded verbally on a single exchange. Today, options are traded on
numerous exchanges electronically significantly reducing the ability of
a group of Market Makers on a single exchange from engaging in
manipulative activity. Further, other Exchange rules address the
manipulation concern that current paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 6.37-O was
intended to address. For example, Exchange Rule 11.5 prohibits market
manipulation on the Exchange generally. Exchange Rule 11.20(a)(1) also
prohibits members, including Market Makers, from knowingly managing or
financing a manipulative operation, which would include congregating in
a particular class of securities to manipulate or dominate the market.
    Paragraph (c)(4) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O states that whenever a
Floor Broker enters a trading crowd and calls for a market in a
particular option series, each Market Maker present at the trading post
will be obligated to vocalize a two-sided, legal-width market (pursuant
to former Exchange Rule 6.37-O(b)(1)) for a minimum of 10 contracts.
Market Makers would continue to be required to make legal-wide markets
in compliance with proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O(b). However, Market
Makers would no longer be required to quote for a least 10 contracts.
The 10 contract requirement is antiquated and not necessary in a market
environment where options are traded electronically on multiple
exchanges. Furthermore, the 10 contract requirement is not included in
the rules of NYSE American Rule 925NY or other options exchanges.\11\
Current Exchange Rule 6.37B-O(b) and (c) (proposed to be renumbered as
Exchange Rule 6.37A-O) would require that Market Maker quotations meet
the legal quote width requirements of proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., Cboe Exchange, Inc. Rule 8.7 and Nasdaq Options
Rules, Chapter VII, Sections 5 and 6 (no including a requirement
that a market maker's quotation be for at least 10 contracts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(4) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O states that its obligation
to provide a legal-width market only applies to: (A) Market Makers who
have executed a transaction in the issue, but not those who have been
assigned contracts by the Trading Official pursuant to Commentary .05,
on the day of the Floor Broker's call for a market or on the previous
business day; (B) option issues that are ranked in the 120 most
actively traded equity options based on the total number of contracts
traded nationally as reported by the Options Clearing Corporation (for
each current month, the Exchange's determination of whether an equity
option ranks in the top 120 most active issues is based on volume
statistics for the one month of trading activity that occurred two
months prior to the current month); (C) non-broker-dealer orders; and
(D) series not designated as LEAPS (pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.4).
With respect to (A) and (B) above, the provision to provide a legal-
width market under proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O(b) would apply to all
options to which a Market Maker is appointed and would not be limited.
With respect to (C) above regarding providing a quote to non-broker-
dealer orders, paragraph (e) of Exchange Rule 6.37B-O (proposed to be
renumbered as Exchange Rule 6.37A-O) would continue to state that ``[a]
Market Maker shall be compelled to buy/sell a specified quantity of
option contracts at the disseminated bid/offer pursuant to his
obligations under Rule 6.86-O.'' This rule would preclude a Market
Maker from not honoring its quotation against non-broker-dealer orders.
Therefore, current paragraph (c)(4)(C) is not necessary to be included
in proposed Rule 6.37-O(c). Lastly, current paragraph (D) states that
the paragraph (c)(4) would not apply to series designated as LEAPS. The
Exchange notes that current paragraph (b) and (c) of Exchange Rule
6.37B-O (proposed to

be renumbered as Exchange Rule 6.37A-O) set forth Market Maker quoting
obligation and Commentary .01 of that rule states that those quoting
obligation ``shall not apply to Market Makers with respect to adjusted
option series, and series with a time to expiration of nine months or
greater'', i.e., LEAPS. Therefore, as amended, the quoting obligations
set forth in proposed Rule 6.37-O would continue to not apply to LEAPS.
    Deletion of Current Paragraph (d), In Person Requirements for
Market Makers. The Exchange proposes to remove the text of current
paragraph (d) of Exchange Rule 6.37-O because no similar provision is
included in NYSE American Rule 925NY to which the Exchange seeks to
harmonize its Market Maker obligations. Furthermore, this provision is
unnecessary as it conflicts with more stringent requirements set forth
in current Exchange Rule 6.35-O described below. Current Exchange Rule
6.37-O(d) sets forth in-person requirements for Market Makers and
requires that an adequate number of Market Makers be available
throughout each trading session. Exchange Rule 6.37-O(d) requires the
following minimum in-person trading requirements: At least 60% of a
Market Maker's transactions must be executed by the Market Maker in-
person or through an approved facility of the Exchange. Orders executed
for a Market Maker through a Floor Broker will not be credited toward
the 60% requirement. A failure to comply with this 60% in-person
trading requirement may result in a fine pursuant to Rule 10.12;
however, if aggravating circumstances are present, formal disciplinary
action may be taken pursuant to Rule 10.4. Exchange Rule 6.37-O(d)
further states that in order to assure compliance with the spirit and
intent of the 60% requirement, the Exchange may review each of the
Market Maker's transactions used to meet the 60% requirement.
    The Exchange does not proposes to include the text of current
paragraph (d) to Exchange Rule 6.37-O as this requirement conflicts
with Exchange Rule 6.35-O(i), which sets forth a higher standard and
applies to Market Maker activity both on the floor and conducted
electronically. Specifically, paragraph (i) of Exchange Rule 6.35-O
requires that at least 75% of the trading activity of a Market Maker
(measured in terms of contract volume per quarter) must be in classes
within the Market Maker's appointment. Paragraph (j) of Exchange Rule
6.35-O set forth how the Exchange would calculate whether the Market
Maker satisfied the requirements of paragraph (i) and sets forth the
penalties for non-compliance.
    Proposed (e), Prohibited Practices and Procedures. The Exchange
proposes to retain the text of current paragraph (e) of Exchange Rule
6.37-O. The Exchange notes that the text of current Exchange Rule
6.37(e) is identical to NYSE American Rule 925NY(e). Any practice or
procedure whereby Market Makers trading any particular option issue
determine by agreement the spreads or option prices at which they will
trade that issue would continue to be prohibited. In addition, any
practice or procedure whereby Market Makers trading any particular
option issue determine by agreement the allocation of orders that may
be executed in that issue would also continue to be prohibited.
    Proposed Paragraph (f). Exchange Rule 6.37-O(f) discusses when
members of a trading crowd may act collectively in response to a
request for a market. The Exchange proposes to replace the current text
of paragraph (f) to Exchange Rule 6.37-O with the text of NYSE American
Rule 925NY(f). But for minor differences explained below, the revised
text is substantially similar to the existing text of Exchange Rule
6.37-O(f). The proposed amendment would harmonize the rule with that of
NYSE American Rule 925NY(f). Current paragraph (f) of Rule 6.37-O
states that notwithstanding the prohibitions set forth in Subsection
(e), the LMM and members of the trading crowd are permitted to act
collectively as set forth below: (1) The obligation of Market Makers to
make competitive markets does not preclude the LMM and members of the
trading crowd from making a collective response to a request for a
market, provided the OTP Holder or OTP Firm representing the order
requests such a response in order to fill a large order (for purposes
of this rule, a large order is an order for a number of contracts that
is greater than the eligible order size for automatic execution
pursuant to Rule 6.87) and; (2) in conjunction with their obligations
as a responsible broker or dealer pursuant to Exchange Rule 6.86-O and
Rule 602 of Regulation NMS, the Firm Quote Rule,\12\ the LMM and Market
Makers in the trading crowd may collectively agree to the best bid,
best offer and aggregate quotation size required to be communicated to
the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.86(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 242.602. The Exchange notes that Rule 11Ac1-1 under
the Act has been renumbered as Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the language proposed in Exchange Rule 6.37-O would differ
from that currently set forth in Rule 6.37-O(f), the application and
meaning of the rule would be the same. Like as set forth under current
paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 6.37-O, Market Makers in a trading crowd would
continue to be able to discuss a request for a market that is greater
than the disseminated size for that option class, for the purpose of
making a single bid (offer) based upon the aggregate of individual bids
(offers) by members in the trading crowd, but only when the member
representing the order asks for a single bid (offer). Also, like as
required in current paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 6.37-O, proposed paragraph
(f) to Rule 6.37-O would continue to require that such bids or offers
are firm quotes and each member of the trading crowd participating in
the bid (offer) shall be obligated to fulfill his portion of the single
bid (offer) at the single price. Such bids and offers would, therefore,
continue to be required to comply with Exchange Rule 6.86-O, Firm
Quotes, and Rule 602 of Regulation NMS, even though those rules are not
specifically mentioned by number. Market Maker quotations must comply
with their firm quote obligations set forth in Exchange Rule 6.86-O and
Rule 602 of Regulations NMS regardless of whether those rules are
specifically mentioned in proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O(f).
Furthermore, paragraph (e) of Exchange Rule 6.37B-O (proposed to be
renumbered as Exchange Rule 6.37A-O) would continue to state that ``[a]
Market Maker shall be compelled to buy/sell a specified quantity of
option contracts at the disseminated bid/offer pursuant to his
obligations under Rule 6.86-O.'' The text of proposed paragraph (f) of
Rule 6.37-O would also mirror the text of NYSE American Rule 925NY(f).
    Proposed paragraph (f) of Rule 6.37-O would state that the
obligation of Market Makers to make competitive markets does not
preclude Market Makers in a trading crowd from discussing a request for
a market that is greater than the disseminated size for that option
class, for the purpose of making a single bid (offer) based upon the
aggregate of individual bids (offers) by members in the trading crowd,
but only when the member representing the order asks for a single bid
(offer). Whenever a single bid (offer) pursuant to this paragraph is
made, such bid (offer) shall be a firm quote and each member of the
trading crowd participating in the bid (offer) shall be obligated to
fulfill his portion of the single bid (offer) at the single price.
    Commentary. First, the Exchange proposes to harmonize the leave of
absence requirements under current Commentary .07 to Exchange Rule
6.37-

O with that of Commentary .01 to NYSE American Rule 925NY.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt the text of Commentary .01
to NYSE American Rule 925NY as Commentary .01 to Exchange Rule 6.37-O.
As amended, like current Commentary .07(a), (b), and (c) to Exchange
Rule 6.37-O, Commentary .01(a), (b), and (c) would allow Market Makers
to request leaves of absence when they plan to be away from the floor
or temporarily withdraw from submitting quotations into the System for
periods in excess of two weeks during a calendar quarter. Requests for
leaves of absence must continue to be submitted in writing to the
Exchange prior to the commencement of the intended leave. Lastly, while
on leave, Market Makers will continue to not be permitted to make
opening transactions in Exchange listed options, in their Market Maker
accounts, through the use of a Floor Brokers, except as provided in
Exchange Rule 6.32-O, Commentary .01. The Exchange does not proposes to
retain the paragraph (d) of Commentary .07 to Exchange Rule 6.37-O
under new Commentary .01 as that provision is outdated and is not part
of NYSE American Rule 925NY to which the Exchange seeks to harmonize.
    Furthermore, the Exchange does not propose to retain the remaining
provisions, Commentary .01 through .06 and .08 through .09 of the
Commentary to Exchange Rule 6.37-O. These provisions are outdated for
the reasons discussed below, and not included in the current NYSE
American Rule 925NY to which the Exchange seeks to harmonize its Market
Maker obligations.
    Current Commentary .01 states that the limitations of Rule 6.37-
O(b)(2) should not be carried over from one day to the next, and
therefore are not applicable to the Exchange's opening. The Exchange
notes that current paragraph (b)(2) to Rule 6.37-O simply states
``Reserved'' and, therefore, includes no limitations that the rule
would need to specify would not be carried over to the next trading day
or apply to the Exchange's opening process. Not retaining this
provision in the amended rule would remove potentially confusing text
referencing an outdated provision in the Exchange's rules, thereby
ensuring the Exchange's rules are clear and easily understood. Further,
this provisions is not included in the current NYSE American Rule 925NY
to which the Exchange seeks to harmonize its Market Maker obligations.
    Current Commentary .02 states that the bid-ask differentials as
stated in paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 6.37-O shall apply to all option
series open for trading in each option class. This provision is not
necessary as the rule, by its terms, applies to all Market Makers
appointed in an options class on the Exchange.\13\ This provision is
also not included in the current NYSE American Rule 925NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Exchange Rule 6.37-O(b) and (b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Commentary .03 states that when a Market Maker displays a
market on the screen that is the best market in that crowd, the Market
Maker is obligated to ensure that its market is removed from the screen
when the Market Maker leaves the crowd. Current Commentary .03 is
applicable only to Market Maker activity in a floor-based market. In
addition, Market Makers who post a quotation, whether in the crowd or
not, are required to comply with their firm quote obligations under
Exchange Rule 6.86-O and Rule 602(b) of Regulation NMS. If the Market
Maker leaves the crowd, it is up to them to remove their quote or to
honor any executions that occur while their quote remains posted.
Further, this provision is not included in the current NYSE American
Rule 925NY.
    Current Commentary .04 states that the obligations of a Market
Maker with respect to those classes of option contracts to which he
holds an appointment, pursuant to Rule 6.35-O, shall take precedence
over his other Market Maker obligations. This provision is not included
in the current NYSE American Rule 925NY. This provision is also not
necessary as proposed Rule 6.37-O(b) would include all of a Market
Makers obligations for options classes for which they are appointed,
and a Market Maker would be required to satisfy those obligations
regardless of whether that Market Maker is engaged in other market
making activities. Furthermore, proposed paragraph (d) to Exchange Rule
6.37-O states that ``[w]ith respect to classes of option contracts
outside of their appointment, Market Makers should not engage in
transactions for an account in which they have an interest that are
disproportionate in relation to, or in derogation of, the performance
of their obligations as specified in this Rule with respect to the
classes in their appointment.''
    Current Commentary .05 states that whenever a Floor Broker enters a
trading crowd and calls for a market in any class and series at that
post, each Market Maker present at the post where the option is traded
is obligated, at a minimum, to make a market for one contract except as
provided for in Rule 6.37-O(b)(5) and Rule 6.37-O(c)(4), at the
established price. In addition, the Exchange may determine that Market
Makers in trading crowds shall increase the depth of their markets as
set forth in Options Floor Procedure Advice B-12. In the event a Floor
Broker is unable to satisfy his order from bids and offers given in the
crowd, the Trading Official may assign one contract to every Market
Maker present within the primary zone to assist the Floor Broker in
satisfying his order. If a Market Maker at the post either bids lower
or offers higher than the established market, such Market Maker shall
be obligated to trade one contract at the price quoted by the Market
Maker. This provision is not necessary and is not included in the
current NYSE American Rule 925NY. As amended, proposed Rule 6.37-
O(b)(2) would require a Market Maker to make markets that will be
honored for the number of contracts entered into the System in all
series of options classes within the Market Maker's appointment.
    Current Commentary .06 states that the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market has been determined to be impaired in instances where a
Market Maker refuses to honor a market quotation that has just been
given, in response to a request for a market. This provision is not
necessary as the proposed rule requires Market Makers to enter two-
sided quotations in the options classes that they are appointed and to
honor those quotations.\14\ This provision is also not included in the
current NYSE American Rule 925NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed paragraphs (b) and (f) of Exchange Rule 6.37-
O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Commentary .08 states that a Market Maker may be compelled
to buy/sell a specified quantity of option contracts at the
disseminated bid/offer pursuant to his obligations under Rule 6.86-O.
The Exchange does not proposes to retain this provision as a similar
provision is not included in the current NYSE American Rule 925NY. In
addition, the obligation set forth in Commentary .08 are redundant with
Market Maker's obligation to not only comply with the Exchange's firm
quote obligations set forth under Exchange Rule 6.86-O, but also their
obligations to comply with Rule 602 of Regulation NMS. Moreover, a
Market Maker's firm quote obligations are also discussed in proposed
paragraph (b)(2) to Exchange Rule 6.37-O which requires Market Makers
to make markets that will be honored for the number of contracts
entered into the System.
    Current Commentary .09 states that the Exchange or its authorized
agent may calculate bids and asks for various indices for the sole
purpose of

determining permissible bid/ask differentials on options on these
indices. These values will be calculated by determining the weighted
average of the bids and asks for the components of the corresponding
index. These bids and asks will be disseminated by the Exchange at
least every fifteen (15) seconds during the trading day solely for the
purpose of determining the permissible bid/ask differential that Market
Makers may quote on an in-the-money option on the indices. For in-the-
money series in index options where the calculated bid/ask differential
is wider than the applicable differential set out in subparagraph
(b)(1) of Rule 6.37-O, the bid/ask differential in the index option
series may be as wide as the calculated bid/ask differential in the
underlying index. The Exchange will not make a market in the basket of
stock comprising the indices and is not guaranteeing the accuracy or
the availability of the bid/ask values. This provision is not necessary
as the Exchange no longer performs the calculations described in the
Commentary .09. Removing this provision would, therefore, more
accurately describe the operation of the system in the Exchange's
rules. A similar provision is also not included in the current NYSE
American Rule 925NY.
Exchange Rule 6.41-O, Market Maker Marketing Reports
    The Exchange proposes to delete the text of Exchange Rule 6.41-O,
entitled Market Maker Marketing Reports. Exchange Rule 6.41-O states
that the Exchange will provide its Market Makers with statistical
reports designed to measure trading volume and participation in trading
activity in each option issue traded on the Exchange. The reports are
to provide monthly trading information that identifies, by order flow
provider, the issue and number of contracts traded, the Lead Market
Maker post where the issue is traded, the contra and executing broker
symbols, and whether the trade was executed through the Exchange's OX
electronic trading system or manually in the trading crowd. Under its
rules, the Exchange currently provides other reports, including reports
related to compared trades.\15\ However, the Exchange no longer
provides the report described in Exchange Rule 6.41-O to Market Makers,
no Market Maker has requested such report, no other rule or regulation
requires the Exchange to provide such report, and that the rules of its
affiliate, NYSE American, do not include a similar provision.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the text of Exchange Rule
6.41-O to avoid potential confusion regarding the specific reports
produced by the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to delete a cross-
reference to Exchange Rule 6.41-O in Exchange Rule 11.16, Books and
Records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rules 6.18-O, 6.19-O, and 6.21-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 6.43-O, Options Floor Broker Defined
    The Exchange proposes to amend 6.43-O(b)(1) and (2) to replace the
definition of ``Professional Customer'' with the single-use term
``Qualified Customer'' in connection with the limited public business
that qualified Floor Brokers and their Floor Clerks may conduct. Rule
6.43-O(b) defines both the permissible conduct of a limited public
business and defines the term ``Professional Customer'', for purposes
of Rule 6.43-O(b).\16\ Exchange Rule 6.1A-O(4A) also defines the term
``Professional Customer'', but does so differently.\17\ To avoid
unnecessary complexity or confusion concerning the duplicate
definitions of ``Professional Customer'', the Exchange proposes to
amend 6.43-O(b) to replace the definition of ``Professional Customer''
with the single-use term ``Qualified Customer'' in connection with the
limited public business, and to limit the use of ``Qualified Customer''
to Rule 6.43-O(b). This proposed change would also harmonize NYSE Arca
Rule 6.43-O(b)(1) and (2) with NYSE American Rules 930NY(b)(1) and
(2).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Exchange Rule 6.43(b)(2) defines ``Professional Customer''
as ``a bank; trust company; insurance company; investment trust; a
state or political subdivision thereof; charitable or nonprofit
educational institution regulated under the laws of the United
States, or any state, or pension or profit sharing plan subject to
ERISA or of any agency of the United States as of a state or
political subdivision thereof; or any person (other than a natural
person) who has, or who has under management, net tangible assets of
at least sixteen million dollars.''
    \17\ The definition of ``Professional Customer'' in Rule 6.1A-
O(4A), which is broader than the definition in Rule 6.43-O(b)(2),
defines a ``Professional Customer'' as an individual or organization
that is not a Broker/Dealer in securities and places more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month
for its own beneficial account(s). Rule 6.1A-O(4A) also defines the
treatment of a Professional Customer under various Exchange rules
except Rule 6.43-O(b), and defines how to calculate the number of
Professional Customers orders in connection with different order
types.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81670 (September
21, 2017), 82 FR 45095 (September 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEAMER-2017-18)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as Described Herein,
To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote Standardization and
Clarity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 6.47-O, ``Crossing'' Orders--OX
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.47-O, its crossing rule, by
replacing outdated references to the requirement that execution prices
``be equal to or better than the NBBO'' with updated cross-references
to the Rule 6.94-O, the current plenary Order Protection Rule. In
addition, in connection with non-facilitation (regular way) crosses,
facilitation procedures, crossing of solicited orders, and customer-to-
customer crosses, the Exchange proposes to delete from Rules 6.47-
O(a)(3), (b)(5), (c)(3), and (e)(3) the sentences that provide that
``[t]he orders will be cancelled or posted in the Book if an execution
would take place at a price that is inferior to the NBBO''. Exchange
Rule 6.94-O governs such situations, and the orders will not be
cancelled or posted but would trade through in accord with the
exemptions in Exchange Rule 6.94-O. This proposed change would also
harmonize NYSE Arca Rule 6.47-O with NYSE American Rules 934NY.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 6.67-O, Order Format and Entry Requirements
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.67-O(d)(2)(A) to replace an
outdated reference to require timestamps be synchronized to the ``NIST
Clock'' with a reference to Rule 11.6820, the current Consolidated
Audit Trail (``CAT'') clock synchronization rule. Specifically, in
connection with Rule 6.67-O(d)(2)(A), which governs contingency
reporting procedures when an exception to the Electronic Order Capture
System (``EOC'') applies, the Exchange proposes to delete an outdated
reference to ``(a timestamp synchronized with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Atomic Clock in Boulder Colorado `NIST Clock'
will be available at all OTP Holder and OTP Firm booths and trading
posts'' and replace it with a requirement that all order events must
conform to the requirements of Rule 11.6820. For further clarity, the
Exchange also proposes to delete ``immediately'' from the text of the
rule because Rule 11.6820 sets the operative standard. This proposed
change would also harmonize NYSE Arca Rule 6.67-O(d)(2)(A) with NYSE
American Rules 955NY(d)(2)(A).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 6.69-O, Reporting Duties
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 6.69-O(b)(iii) to
harmonize it with NYSE American Rule

957NY(b)(iii). Exchange Rule 6.69-O(b) governs reporting of
transactions on the options floor and subparagraph (iii) is specific to
Complex Orders. In particular, subparagraph (b)(iii) of Rule 6.69-O
currently states that for Complex Order transactions, ``between two
Floor Brokers or two Market Makers, the party responsible for reporting
the transaction shall be the OTP Holder that first initiated the
transaction.'' The Exchange proposes to delete this language and
replace it with ``where the transaction is made up of both buy and sell
orders and priced on a net debit/credit basis, the seller shall be
determined to be the OTP Holder participating on the `debit' side of
the trade.'' Doing so would harmonize the reporting requirements for
Complex Orders under Rule 6.69-O(b)(iii) with those for complex orders
under NYSE American Rule 957NY(b)(iii),\21\ thereby providing
consistent reporting obligations across the Exchange and its affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exchange Rule 6.75-O, Priority and Order Allocation Procedures--Open
Outcry
    The Exchange proposes to conform Rule 6.75-O governing the priority
of Complex Orders \22\ in open outcry to its Rule 6.91-O governing
Electronic Complex Orders.\23\ Rule 6.91-O(a)(1) governs the priority
of Electronic Complex Orders \24\ in the Consolidated Book and states
that ``Electronic Complex Orders in the Consolidated Book shall be
ranked according to price/time priority based on the total or net debit
or credit and the time of entry of the order'' (emphasis added).\25\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to conform Rule 6.75-O(g) to Rule
6.91-O(a)(1) by amending Rule 6.75-O(g) to provide that a Complex Order
and Stock/Complex Orders may be executed at a ``total or'' net debit or
credit price. The proposed change would, therefore, not result in any
change to the manner in which Complex Orders are handled under the
Exchange's rules. This proposed change would also harmonize Exchange
Rule 6.75-O(g) with NYSE American Rule 963NY(d).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-O(e).
    \23\ See NYSE Arca Rule 6.91-O.
    \24\ An ``Electronic Complex Order'' means ``any Complex Order
as defined in Rule 6.62-O(e) or any Stock/Option Order or Stock/
Complex Order as defined in Rule 6.62-O(h) that is entered into the
NYSE Arca System (the `System').'' Id.
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 6.91-O(a)(1).
    \26\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81670 (September 21,
2017), 82 FR 45095 (September 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEAMER-2017-18)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as Described Herein,
To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote Standardization and
Clarity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) \27\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\28\ in particular, in that they are 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 mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that conforming and harmonizing
its rules to the rules of an affiliated exchange governing the same
subject matter, updating its rules by harmonizing its Market Maker
obligation with its affiliate, NYSE American, deleting outdated and
updating rule cross-references, eliminating extraneous or redundant
text, and therefore potentially confusing or ambiguous language, would
remove impediments to and perfect a national market system by
simplifying and reducing the complexity of its rules and regulatory
requirements. The Exchange notes that it and its affiliate, NYSE
American, operate in a similar manner and consistent rules across the
Exchange and NYSE American would reduce the likelihood of potential
investor confusion. Furthermore, the proposed rule change would provide
for standardized rules and a consistent set of obligations for common
members as well as those members that are engaged in market making
activities on both the Exchange and NYSE American. The Exchange also
believes that these proposed amendments would be consistent with the
public interest and the protection of investors because investors would
benefit from the proposal to harmonize, simplify, update and clarify
the rules discussed herein. Further, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would benefit investors by improving the
transparency and clarity of the Exchange's rules.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that by updating and
conforming its rules governing Market Maker obligations to the rules of
NYSE American, its affiliated exchange, removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by providing consistent, standardized rules governing Market
Makers across both the Exchange and its affiliate. It should also aid
those firms that engage in market making activity on both the Exchange
and NYSE American with identical obligations, thereby aiding those
firms in complying with the Exchange's rules by providing a harmonized
set of regulatory obligations.
    Furthermore, by removing extraneous language from Exchange Rule
6.17-O, Commentary .01, deleting outdated text under Exchange Rule
6.41-O regarding a report no longer produced to Market Makers by the
Exchange, replacing the definition of ``Professional Customer'' with
the single-use term ``Qualified Customer'' under Exchange Rule 6.43-O
in connection with the limited public business that qualified Floor
Brokers and their Floor Clerks may conduct, by harmonizing Exchange
Rule 6.47-O, its crossing rule, with NYSE American Rule 934NY by
replacing outdated and potentially ambiguous references to the NBBO
with cross-references to the current plenary Order Protection Rule, by
updating and clarifying Exchange Rule 6.67-O governing its order format
and system entry requirements by replacing an outdated reference with a
reference to the current operative CAT time synchronization rule, and
by conforming Exchange Rule 6.75-O governing the priority of complex
orders in open outcry to its rule governing Electronic Complex Orders,
would also promote just and equitable principles of trade, would remove
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, would help to protect
investors and the public interest by providing transparency as to which
rules are operable, and by reducing potential confusion that may result
from having outdated or redundant rules or cross-references in the
Exchange's rulebook. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposed
changes to Exchange Rules 6.37-O, 6.43-O(b), 6.47-O, 6.67-O(d)(2)(A),
6.69-O(b)(iii), and 6.75-O(g) are based on the rules of its affiliate,
NYSE American.\29\ The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule
changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market by ensuring that members, regulators and the public can
more

easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook, thereby
avoiding potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., NYSE American Rules 925NY, 930NY, 934NY, 955NY,
957NY, and 936NY. See also, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 81670 (September 21, 2017), 82 FR 45095 (September 27, 2017)
(SR-NYSEAMER-2017-18) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change To Update and Amend its Options Rules, as
Described Herein, To Reduce Unnecessary Complexity and To Promote
Standardization and Clarity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are not
designed to address any competitive issue or attract additional order
flow to the Exchange. Rather, these changes would update, remove, and
clarify outdated cross-references and definitions, and redundant
language, and also conform the Exchange's rules and definitions to the
rules of an affiliated exchange, thereby reducing potential confusion
and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate. The
Exchange notes that it and its affiliate, NYSE American, operate in a
similar manner and consistent rules across the Exchange and NYSE
American would reduce the likelihood of potential investor confusion.
Therefore, the proposed rule change is not intended to impose a burden
on competition but rather provide for standardized rules and a
consistent set of obligations for common members as well as those
members that are engaged in market making activities on both the
Exchange and NYSE American.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\31\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \32\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2018-65 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-2018-65. 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-2018-65 and should be submitted
on or before October 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20193 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68169-68170]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27779]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68196; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-128]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Fees Assessed Under Section VII. C. of the Pricing Schedule

November 8, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 26, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify fees assessed under Section VII. C.
of the PHLX Pricing Schedule relating to the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD system''), which are collected by FINRA. PHLX is
proposing that the implementation date of the proposed rule change will
be January 2, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at PHLX's principal office,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III [sic] 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    PHLX is amending its fees assessed under Section VII. C. of the
PHLX Pricing Schedule to reflect a recent fee change made by FINRA,\3\
relating to the CRD system.\4\ The fees assessed under Section VII. C.
are collected and retained by FINRA via the CRD system for the
registration of associated persons of Exchange members that are not
also FINRA members. The Exchange originally adopted the fees under
Section VII. C. to mirror the fees assessed by FINRA on its members for
use of the CRD system in connection with the Exchange's participation
in Web CRD.\5\ FINRA recently amended the fees assessed for use of the
CRD system, which will become effective January 2, 2013.\6\ The CRD
system fees are use-based and there is no distinction in the cost
incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a member of an
exchange that is not a FINRA member. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the fees under Section VII. C. to mirror those
assessed by FINRA, which will be implemented concurrently with the
amended FINRA fees on January 2, 2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030).
    \4\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker-
dealers.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53688 (April 20,
2006), 71 FR 24885 (April 27, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-24). See also,
Section 4(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
    \6\ Supra note 3.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that it is not adopting all of the
changes made in the FINRA filing. Certain fees and requirements are
specific to FINRA and the Exchange elected to not adopt them because
either such fees did not apply to Exchange-only members or such fees
did not directly cover the costs associated with the use of the CRD
system. For example, under FINRA Section 4(h) of Schedule A FINRA
assesses a fee of $10 per day, up to $300 for each day that a new
disclosure event or a change in the status of a previously reported
disclosure event is not timely filed on an initial or amended Form
U5 or an amended Form U4. [sic] This fee provides a financial
incentive to a FINRA member to file its Forms U4 and U5 timely. The
Exchange elected to not adopt such a fee applicable to its members
that are not also FINRA members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to increasing the existing CRD system fees, FINRA
adopted a new fee for the additional processing of each initial or
amended Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or
certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings.\8\
Member firms use the Form BD to, among other things, report disclosure
matters in which they or a control affiliate have been involved. Prior
to the adoption of the new fee, FINRA did not have a fee designed to
cover the costs associated with the review of Form BD notwithstanding
the review is similar to that performed of member firms' Forms U4 and
U5. Such reviews include confirming that the matter is properly
reported; reviewing any documentation submitted and determining whether
additional documentation is required; conducting any necessary
independent research; and, depending on the matter reported, analyzing
whether the event or proceeding subjects the individual or member to a
statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Act.\9\
FINRA adopted a $110 fee for the review of a Form BD, which mirrors the
increased fee adopted for the review of Forms U4 and U5. As such, the
Exchange is adopting the identical fee for FINRA's review of a Form BD
submitted by Exchange members that are not members of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing that the implementation date of the
proposed

rule change will be January 2, 2013. Specifically, the proposed
initial/transfer registration, disclosure filing, and fingerprint fees
would become effective for filings or fingerprints submitted on or
after January 2, 2013. Lastly, the proposed system processing fee would
become effective for the 2013 Renewal Program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As part of FINRA's 2013 Renewal Program, Preliminary
Renewal Statements reflecting the proposed $45 system processing fee
will be made available to members in the fourth quarter of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates
or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. All similarly situated members are subject
to the same fee structure, and every member firm must use the CRD
system for registration and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change is reasonable because the proposed fees are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members. As FINRA noted in
amending its fees, it believed the fees are reasonable based on the
increased costs associated with operating and maintaining the CRD
system, and listed a number of enhancements made to the CRD system
since the last fee increase, including: (1) Incorporation of various
uniform registration form changes; (2) electronic fingerprint
processing; (3) Web EFT\TM\, which allows subscribing firms to submit
batch filings to the CRD system; (4) increases in the number and types
of reports available through the CRD system; and (5) significant
changes to BrokerCheck, including making BrokerCheck easier to use and
expanding the amount of information made available through the system.
These increased costs are similarly borne by FINRA when a member of the
Exchange that is not a member of FINRA uses the CRD system.
Accordingly, the fees collected for such use should likewise increase
in lockstep with the fees assessed FINRA members, as is proposed by the
Exchange.
    The proposed change, like FINRA's proposal, is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees because the fees will apply equally to all
individuals and members required to report information to the CRD
system. Thus, those members that register more individuals or submit
more filings through the CRD system will generally pay more in fees
than those members that use the CRD system to a lesser extent.

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

    The Exchange 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.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ PHLX has
designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2012-128 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-Phlx-2012-128. 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-Phlx-2012-128, and should be submitted on or before
December 6, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27779 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57182]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3561-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Florida (FEMA-3561-EM), dated July 4, 2021, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 27, 2021.

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 the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective July 8, 2021.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22337 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35570]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0569]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and the
Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, both crossing the Willamette River at
Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate Portland's Red,
White, and Blues Run/Walk event. The deviation allows the bridges to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
July 5, 2015 to allow for the safe movement of event participants
across the bridges.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on July 5,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0569] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County has requested that the
Hawthorne and Morrison drawbridges across the Willamette River in
Portland, OR remain closed to vessel traffic from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on
July 5, 2015 to facilitate safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of event
participants for the Red, White and Blues Run/Walk event.
    The Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, provides a vertical clearance of 69
feet in the closed position, and the Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1,
provides 49 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position, all
clearances are referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia
River Datum 0.0.
    This deviation allows the Hawthorne and Morrison Bridges, across
the Willamette River, to remain in the closed position and need not
open for maritime traffic from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on July 5, 2015.
Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels
ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed positions
may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 17, 2015.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-15215 Filed 6-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

Open Meeting, October 9-12, 2007, to review the

Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498

FIFRA SAP Website:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/"  http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

PANEL

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, MI

Designated Federal Official

Joseph Bailey

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

John R. Bucher, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.

Associate Director

Environmental Toxicology Program

NIEHS

Research Triangle Park, NC

Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S.

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Stuart Handwerger, M.D.

Robert and Mary Shoemaker Professor of Pediatrics and Director of Endocrinology

Professor of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy

University of Cincinnati/Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center

Cincinnati, OH

Gary E. Isom, Ph.D.

Professor of Toxicology

Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology

School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, GA

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology,

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, CA

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Theodore B. Bailey, Ph.D.

Professor of Statistics

Iowa State University

Ames, IA

Peter Delorme, Ph.D.

Senior Evaluator

Environmental Assessment Division

PMRA, Health Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

CANADA

Robert J. Denver, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology,

Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology

The University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI

J. David Furlow, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Section of Neurobiology, Physiology, and Behavior

University of California, Davis

Davis, CA

Sherril Green, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Comparative Medicine

Stanford University School of Medicine

Stanford, CA

Gerald LeBlanc, Ph.D.

Professor of Toxicology

Department of Environmental & Molecular Toxicology

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC

Debra L. Miller, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Veterinary Pathology

Veterinary Diagnostic & Investigational Laboratory

College of Veterinary Medicine

University of Georgia

Tifton, GA

Reynaldo Patino, Ph.D.

Research Scientist/Professor

Texas Tech University

USGS Texas Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit

Lubbock, TX

Bruce Douglas Pauli, M.S.

Forest Ecosystem Specialist

Environment Canada

National Wildlife Research Centre

Carleton University

Ottawa, Ontario

CANADA

David Skelly, Ph.D.

Professor of Ecology

School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Kathleen M. Yeater, Ph.D.

Statistician

USDA-ARS

Williamsburg, VA


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51970]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. RP11-2253-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Technical Conference

    On July 28, 2011, the Commission accepted and suspended the tariff
records that Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) filed to update
its Transportation Cost Rate Adjustment (TCRA) surcharge outside the
usual annual filing schedule, subject to refund and to the outcome of a
technical conference.\1\ Pursuant to the Commission's order, the issues
to be addressed at this conference include, but are not limited to: (1)
The reduction in receipts in northern Ohio; (2) Columbia's proposed
solution as well as other options that it may have considered, and; (3)
Columbia's contracting for additional Millennium Pipeline capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 136 FERC ] 61,062 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the issues
raised by Columbia's filings will be held on Thursday, September 8,
2011 at 10 a.m. (E.S.T.), in a room to be designated at the offices of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conferences are accessible
under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility
accommodations please send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX
to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons, parties, and staff are permitted to attend.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Vince Mareino at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 12, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21156 Filed 8-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P