[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35906]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16278]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0171; FRL-9965-11-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; Negative Declarations; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
direct final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on June 5,
2017. The document approved a total of 20 negative declarations from
all EPA Region 8 states declaring an absence of existing designated
facilities, of certain incinerator classes, regulated under one of the
Emissions Guidelines for solid waste incineration units. An approved
and promulgated negative declaration exempts a state from certain
implementation plan development requirements of Clean Air Act sections
111 and 129. An error in the proposed regulatory text amending 40 CFR
part 62 is identified and corrected in this action.

DATES: This correction is effective on August 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Lohrke, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2017-11576 appearing on page
25734 in the Federal Register of Monday, June 5, 2017, the following
correction is made:

Sec.  62.12620  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 25738, in the third column, in Sec.  62.12620, in the sole
paragraph under this section, in the sixth line, the reference to
``Utah'' is corrected to read ``Wyoming.''

    Dated: July 14, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-16278 Filed 8-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3607-3609]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1358]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                                                           Effective
        State and county          Location and case      officer of           Community map      Online location of Letter of     date of     Community
                                         No.              community            repository                Map Revision          modification      No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas:
    Garland....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Rick  Garland County          http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 17,       050433
                                  areas of Garland    M. Davis, Garland   Courthouse, 501                                              2014
                                  County (13-06-      County Judge,       Quachita Avenue, Hot
                                  1581P).             P.O. Box 368,       Springs, AR 71901.
                                                      Pearcy, AR 71964.

    Saline.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Saline County           http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 17,       050191
                                  areas of Saline     Lanny Fite,         Courthouse, 200 North                                        2014
                                  County, (13-06-     Saline County       Main Street, Room
                                  1581P).             Judge, 200 North    117, Benton, AR 72015.
                                                      Main Street, Room
                                                      117, Benton, AR
                                                      72015.
New Mexico: Lea................  Unincorporated      Mr. Michael         Lea County, 100 North   http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc      March 6,       350130
                                  areas of Lea        Gallagher,          Main Street,                                                 2014
                                  County, (13-06-     Manager, Lea        Lovington, NM 88260.
                                  1634P).             County, 100 North
                                                      Main Street,
                                                      Suite 4,
                                                      Lovington, NM
                                                      88260.
Pennsylvania: Bucks............  Borough of New      Mr. John Burke,     Borough Hall, 123 New   http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 13,       420195
                                  Hope, (13-03-       Manager, Borough    Street, New Hope, PA                                         2014
                                  1604P).             of New Hope, 123    18938.
                                                      New Street, New
                                                      Hope, PA 18938.
Oklahoma:
    Oklahoma...................  City of Oklahoma    The Honorable Mick  420 West Main Street,   http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc      March 6,       405378
                                  City, (13-06-       Cornett, Mayor,     Suite 700, Oklahoma                                          2014
                                  3021P).             City of Oklahoma    City, OK 73102.
                                                      City, 200 North
                                                      Walker Avenue,
                                                      3rd Floor,
                                                      Oklahoma City, OK
                                                      73102.
    Tulsa......................  City of Tulsa, (13- The Honorable       Engineering Services,   http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 17,       405381
                                  06-1997P).          Dewey F.            2317 South Jackson                                           2014
                                                      Bartlett, Jr.,      Avenue, Room S-312,
                                                      Mayor, City of      Tulsa, OK 74107.
                                                      Tulsa, 175 East
                                                      2nd Street, Suite
                                                      690, Tulsa, OK
                                                      74103.
    Tulsa......................  City of Tulsa, (13- The Honorable       Engineering Services,   http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 31,       405381
                                  06-2412P).          Dewey F.            2317 South Jackson                                           2014
                                                      Bartlett, Jr.,      Avenue, Room S-312,
                                                      Mayor, City of      Tulsa, OK 74107.
                                                      Tulsa, 175 East
                                                      2nd Street, Suite
                                                      690, Tulsa, OK
                                                      74103.
Texas:
    Dallas.....................  City of Dallas,     The Honorable Mike  Department of Public    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 17,       480171
                                  (13-06-2373P).      Rawlings, Mayor,    Works, 320 East                                              2014
                                                      City of Dallas,     Jefferson Boulevard,
                                                      1500 Marilla        Room 307, Dallas, TX
                                                      Street, Room 5EN,   75203.
                                                      Dallas, TX 75201.
    Fort Bend..................  City of Sugar       The Honorable       City Hall, 2700 Town    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc  February 14,       480234
                                  Land, (13-06-       James Thompson,     Center Boulevard                                             2014
                                  4003P).             Mayor, City of      North, Sugar Land, TX
                                                      Sugar Land, P.O.    77479.
                                                      Box 110, Sugar
                                                      Land, TX 77487.
    Gray.......................  City of Pampa, (13- The Honorable Brad  200 West Foster         http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 31,       480258
                                  06-2524P).          Pingel, Mayor,      Avenue, Pampa, TX                                            2014
                                                      City of Pampa,      79066.
                                                      P.O. Box 2499,
                                                      Pampa, TX 79066.
     Harris....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ed    Harris County, 10555    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc      March 6,       480287
                                  areas of Harris     M. Emmett, Harris   Northwest Freeway,                                           2014
                                  County, (13-06-     County Judge,       Houston, TX 77092.
                                  1076P).             1001 Preston
                                                      Street, Suite
                                                      911, Houston, TX
                                                      77002.
    Hidalgo....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Hidalgo County          http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 13,       480334
                                  areas of Hidalgo    Ramon Garcia,       Drainage District,                                           2014
                                  County, (13-06-     Hidalgo County      902 North Doolittle
                                  3440P).             Judge, 302 West     Road, Edinburg, TX
                                                      University Drive,   78542.
                                                      Edinburg, TX
                                                      78539.
    Midland....................  City of Midland,    The Honorable W.    City Hall, 300 North    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 10,       480477
                                  (12-06-4034P).      Wesley Perry,       Loraine Street,                                              2014
                                                      Mayor, City of      Midland, TX 79701.
                                                      Midland, 300
                                                      North Loraine
                                                      Street, Midland,
                                                      TX 79701.
    Midland....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Midland County          http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 10,       481239
                                  areas of Midland    Michael R.          Courthouse, 500 North                                        2014
                                  County, (12-06-     Bradford, Midland   Loraine Street,
                                  4034P).             County Judge, 500   Midland, TX 79701.
                                                      North Loraine
                                                      Street, 11th
                                                      Floor, Midland,
                                                      TX 79701.
    Montgomery.................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Alan  Montgomery County       http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 24,       480483
                                  areas of            B. Sadler,          Permitting                                                   2014
                                  Montgomery          Montgomery County   Department, 501 North
                                  County, (13-06-     Judge, 501 North    Thompson Street,
                                  2600P).             Thompson Street,    Suite 100, Conroe, TX
                                                      Suite 401,          77301.
                                                      Conroe, TX 77301.
    Rockwall...................  City of Rockwall,   The Honorable       City Hall, 385 South    http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc  February 28,       480547
                                  (13-06-2095P).      David Sweet,        Goliad Street,                                               2014
                                                      Mayor, City of      Rockwall, TX 75087.
                                                      Rockwall, 385
                                                      South Goliad
                                                      Street, Rockwall,
                                                      TX 75087.
    Travis.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Travis County           http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 13,       481026
                                  areas of Travis     Samuel T. Biscoe,   Administration                                               2014
                                  County, (13-06-     Travis County       Building,
                                  1967P).             Judge, P.O. Box     Transportation and
                                                      1748, Austin, TX    Natural Resources
                                                      78767.              Department, 700
                                                                          Lavaca Street, 5th
                                                                          Floor, Austin, TX
                                                                          78701.

Virginia: Roanoke..............  Unincorporated      Mr. B. Clayton      Roanoke County          http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc     March 13,       510190
                                  areas of Roanoke    Goodman, III,       Community Development                                        2014
                                  County, (12-03-     Roanoke County      Department, 5204
                                  0347P).             Administrator,      Bernard Drive,
                                                      5204 Bernard        Roanoke, VA 24018.
                                                      Drive, Roanoke,
                                                      VA 24018.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-01146 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20145]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8093-022]

Methuen Falls Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of The Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 8093-022.
    c. Date Filed: February 26, 2021.
    d. Submitted By: Methuen Falls Hydroelectric Company (Methuen
Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Methuen Falls Project.
    f. Location: On the Spicket River in Essex County, Massachusetts.
No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 and 5.5 of the Commission's
regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kevin Olson, Olson Electric
Development Company, Inc., 30r Hampshire Street, Methuen, MA 01844;
(978) 975-0400; email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Methuen Hydro filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on February 26, 2021, and provided public notice of the request
on February 26, 2021. In a letter dated April 12, 2021, the Director of
the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Methuen Hydro's request
to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Methuen Hydro as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. On February 26, 2021, Methuen Hydro filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 8093. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28,
2024.
    p. Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx
to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this
or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 12, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07843 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43681-43687]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15760]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78187; File No. SR-C2-2016-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Professionals Order Counting

June 28, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 23, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its definition of ``Professional''
in Rule 1.1 to include guidance on how orders should be counted for
Professional order counting purposes. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided below (additions are italicized; deletions are
[bracketed]).
* * * * *

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

* * * * *

CHAPTER 1

Definitions

Rule 1.1. Definitions

* * * * *

Professional

    The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for
its own beneficial account(s). A Professional will be treated in the
same manner as a broker or dealer in securities for purposes of Rules
6.11, 6.12, 6.13(b)(1), 6.13(c)(5), 6.14, 6.15, 6.51, 6.52 and 8.13.
All Professional orders shall be marked with the appropriate origin
code as determined by the Exchange.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01 Except as noted below, each order of any order type counts as
one order for Professional order counting purposes.
    (a) Complex Orders:
    (1) A complex order comprised of eight (8) legs or fewer counts as
a single order.
    (2) A complex order comprised of nine (9) legs or more counts as
multiple orders with each option leg counting as its own separate
order.
    (b) ``Parent''/``Child'' Orders:
    (1) Same Side and Same Series: A ``parent'' order that is placed
for the beneficial account(s) of a person or entity that is not a
broker or dealer in securities that is broken into multiple ``child''
orders on the same side (buy/sell) and series as the ``parent'' order
by a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm housed at a broker or dealer
or by an algorithm licensed from a broker or dealer, but which is
housed with the customer, counts as one order even if the ``child''
orders are routed across multiple exchanges.
    (2) Both Sides and/or Multiple Series: A ``parent'' order
(including a strategy order) that is broken into multiple ``child''
orders on both sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or multiple series
counts as multiple orders, with each ``child'' order counting as a new
and separate order.
    (c) Cancel/Replace:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) below, any order that
cancels and replaces an existing order counts as a separate order (or
multiple new orders in the case of a complex order comprised of nine
(9) legs or more).
    (2) Same Side and Same Series: An order that cancels and replaces
any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent'' order that is placed
for the beneficial account(s) of a person or entity that is not a
broker, or dealer in securities that is broken into multiple ``child''
orders on the same side (buy/sell) and series as the ``parent'' order
by a broker or dealer, by an algorithm housed at a broker or dealer, or
by an algorithm licensed from a broker or dealer, but which is housed
with the customer, does not count as a new order.
    (3) Both Sides and/or Multiple Series: An order that cancels and
replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent'' order
(including a strategy order) that generates ``child'' orders on both
sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or in multiple series counts as a new
order.
    (4) Pegged Orders: Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph
(c)(2) above, an order that cancels and replaces any ``child'' order
resulting from a ``parent'' order being ``pegged'' to the BBO or NBBO
or that cancels and replaces any ``child'' order pursuant to an
algorithm that uses BBO or NBBO in the calculation of ``child'' orders
and attempts to move with or follow the BBO or NBBO of a series counts
as a new order each time the order cancels and replaces in order to
attempt to move with or follow the BBO or NBBO.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its definition of ``Professional''
in Rule 1.1 to include guidance on how orders should be counted for
Professional order counting purposes. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 to the definition of
``Professional'' within Rule 1.1 (Definitions), setting forth standards
for calculating average daily order submissions for Professional order
counting purposes. The Exchange also proposes to add a provision to
Rule 1.1's definition of Professional, which would provide that all
Professional orders shall be marked with the appropriate origin code as
determined by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change would provide additional clarity in the Rules and serve to
promote the purposes for which the

Exchange's Professional rule was originally adopted. The Exchange notes
that this filing is materially based upon and substantially similar to
rule changes recently adopted by several of the U.S. options exchanges,
including, but not limited to Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'') filing SR-CBOE-2016-005.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77450 (March 25,
2016), 81 FR 18668 (March 31, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) Relating to the Professional Customer
Definition) (SR-CBOE-2016-005); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
77449 (March 25, 2016), 81 FR 18665 (March 31, 2016) (Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to
the Professional Customer Definition) (SR-Phlx-2016-10); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77580 (April 11, 2016), 81 FR 22328 (April
15, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Proposal to Amend Rule 100
(Definitions) Relating to Professionals) (SR-BOX-2016-13); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73628 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR
69958 (November 24, 2014) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Professional
Orders) (SR-CBOE-2014-085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In general, ``public customers'' are granted certain marketplace
advantages over other market participants, including Market-Makers,
brokers and dealers of securities, and industry ``Professionals'' on
most U.S. options exchanges. The U.S. options exchanges, including C2,
have adopted materially similar definitions of the term
``Professional,'' \6\ which commonly refers to persons or entities that
are not a brokers or dealers in securities and who or which place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar
month for their own beneficial account(s).\7\ Various exchanges adopted
similar Professional rules for many of the same reasons, including, but
not limited to the desire to create more competitive marketplaces and
attract retail order flow.\8\ In addition, as several of the exchanges
noted in their original Professional rule filings, their beliefs that
disparate Professional rules and a lack of uniformity in the
application of such rules across the options markets would not promote
the best regulation and may, in fact, encourage regulatory
arbitrage.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Some U.S. options exchanges refer to ``Professionals'' as
``Professional Customers'' or non-``Priority Customers.'' Compare
BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rule 16.1(a)(45) (Professional); BOX
Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') Rule 100(a)(50) (Professional); CBOE
Rule 1.1(ggg) (Professional); C2 Rule 1.1; BX Chapter I, Sec. 1(49)
(Professional); NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1000(b)(14)
(Professional); Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') Chapter I, Sec.
1(a)(48) (Professional); with ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority
Customer); Gemini Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority Customer); Miami
International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') Rule 100 (Priority
Customer); NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule 900.2NY(18A)
(Professional Customer); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.1A(4A)
(Professional Customer).
    \7\ See, e.g., BZX Rule 16.1(a)(45); BOX Rule 100(a)(50); CBOE
Rule 1.1(ggg); C2 Rule 1.1; BX Chapter I, Sec. 1(49); PHLX Rule
1000(b)(14); NOM Chapter I, Sec. 1(a)(48); see also ISE Rule
100(a)(37A) (Priority Customer); Gemini Rule 100(a)(37A) (Priority
Customer); MIAX Rule 100 (Priority Customer); NYSE MKT Rule
900.2NY(18A) (Professional Customer); Arca Rule 6.1A(4A)
(Professional Customer).
    \8\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60931
(November 4, 2009), 74 FR 58355, 58356 (November 12, 2009) (Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Related to Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE 2009-078); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5694, 5694
(January 30, 2009) (Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Professional
Account Holders) (SR-ISE-2006-026); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR 17193, 17194 (April 5, 2010)
(Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2
Thereto, Relating to Professional Orders) (SR-PHLX-2010-005);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61629 (March 2, 2010), 75 FR
10851, 10851 (March 9, 2010) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Designation of a ``Professional Customer'')
(SR-NYSEMKT-2010-018).
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 62724
(August 16, 2010), 75 FR 51509 (August 20, 2010) (Notice of Filing
of a Proposed Rule Change by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC To Adopt a
Definition of Professional and Require That All Professional Orders
Be Appropriately Marked) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-099); Securities and
Exchange Act Release No. 65500 (October 6, 2011), 76 FR 63686
(October 13, 2011) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Definition of Professional and
Require That All Professional Orders Be Appropriately Marked) (SR-
BATS-2011-041); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65036 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49517, 49518 (August 10, 2011) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Definition of ``Professional'' and Require That Professional Orders
Be Appropriately Marked by BOX Options Participants) (SR-BX-2011-
049); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60931 (November 4, 2009),
74 FR 58355, 58357 (November 12, 2009) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to Professional
Orders) (SR-CBOE 2009-078); see also Securities Exchange Act Release
73628 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR 69958, 69960 (November 24, 2014)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE-2014-085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to other U.S. options exchanges, the Exchange grants
``public customers'' certain marketplace advantages over other market
participants pursuant to the Exchange's Fees Schedule \10\ and the
Rules.\11\ In general, public customers may receive allocation and
execution priority above equally priced competing interests of Market-
Makers, broker-dealers, and other market participants. In addition,
customer orders may be exempt or pay lower transaction fees and/or be
exempt from certain Exchange surcharges. Similar to other U.S. options
exchanges, the Exchange affords these marketplace advantages to public
customers based on various business- and regulatory-related objectives,
including, for example, to attract retail order flow to the Exchange
and to provide competitive pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Fees Schedule (Transaction Fees).
    \11\ See, e.g., Rules 6.12(c) (Order Execution and Priority--
Contingency Orders); 6.13(c)(5)(B) (Complex Order Execution--
Execution of COA-Eligible Orders); 6.51(b)(3) (Automated Improvement
Mechanism (``AIM'')--Order Allocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 1.1 defines a Professional as a person or entity
that is not a securities broker or dealer that places more than 390
listed options orders per day on average during a calendar month for
its own beneficial account(s). In large part, the Exchange's
Professional order rules were adopted to distinguish non-broker dealer
individuals and entities that have access to information and technology
that enable them to professionally trade listed options in a manner
similar to brokers or dealers in securities from retail investors for
order priority and/or transaction fees purposes. In general,
Professionals are treated as brokers or dealers in securities under the
Exchange's rules, including, but not limited to with respect to order
priority and fees.\12\ Rule 1.1 is substantially similar to the
Professional order rules of other exchanges and was materially based
upon the preexistent Professional order rules of other exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 1.1; Fees Schedule (Transaction Fees).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60931 (November 4,
2009), 74 FR 58355, 58356 (November 12, 2009) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to
Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE 2009-078); see, e.g., ISE Rule
100(a)(31A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over time, the Exchange has received various questions as to what
constitutes an ``order'' for Professional order counting purposes,
including, but not limited to questions about how to count certain
types of strategy orders and how to count ``child'' orders generated as
part of specific ``parent'' execution strategies. The advent of new
multi-leg spread products and the proliferation of the use of complex
orders and algorithmic execution strategies by both institutional and
retail market participants have continued to spur questions as to what
constitutes an ``order'' for Professional order counting purposes. For
example, do multi-leg spread orders or strategy orders such as
volatility orders constitute a single order or multiple orders for
Professional order counting purposes? The Exchange's

Professional rule does not fully address these issues and, to date,
there has not been a common interpretation across the U.S. options
markets. The Exchange believes that additional clarity is needed
regarding the application of Rule 1.1 with respect to Professionals.
Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 1.1 to add
Interpretation and Policy .01 to the definition of Professional to
address how various new execution and order strategies should be
treated under the Exchange's Professional rule. The Exchange believes
that the adoption of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional is warranted to ensure that public
customers are afforded the marketplace advantages that they are
intended to be afforded over other types of market participants on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that despite the adoption of materially similar
Professional rules across the markets, exchanges' interpretations of
their respective Professional rules vary. Although Professionals are
similarly defined by exchanges as non-broker-dealer persons or entities
that place more than 390 orders in listed options for their own
beneficial account(s) per day on average during a calendar month, there
is no consistent definition across the markets as to what constitutes
an ``order'' for Professional order counting purposes. While several
options exchanges have attempted to clarify their interpretations of
their Professional rules through regulatory and information notices and
circulars,\14\ those interpretations have not necessarily been
consistent.\15\ As a result, the Exchange believes that the rather than
helping to promote the best regulation and discourage regulatory
arbitrage, the Professional rules have become a basis of intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed set of standards
would allow the Exchange to better compete for order flow and help
ensure deeper levels of liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change would help to remove impediments
to and help perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system by increasing competition in the marketplace.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Rules by adopting
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Regulatory Circular RG09-148 (Professional Orders); ISE
Regulatory Information Circular 2014-007/Gemini Regulatory
Information Circular 2014-011 (Priority Customer Orders and
Professional Orders (FAQ)); MIAX Regulatory Circular 2014-69
(Priority Customer and Professional Interest Order Summary); NYSE
Joint Regulatory Bulletin, NYSE Acra RBO-15-03, NYSE Amex RBO-15-06)
(Professional Customer Orders); BOX Regulatory Circular RC-2015-21
(Professional Orders).
    \15\ Compare NYSE Joint Regulatory Bulletin, NYSE Acra RBO-15-
03, NYSE Amex RBO-15-06) (Professional Customer Orders);
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1(ggg) with ISE Regulatory
Information Circular 2014-007/Gemini Regulatory Information Circular
2014-011 (Priority Customer Orders and Professional Orders (FAQ));
and ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2009-179 (Priority Customer
Orders and Professional Orders (FAQ)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional setting forth a detailed counting
regime for calculating average daily orders for Professional order
counting purposes. Specifically, the Exchange's proposed Interpretation
and Policy would make clear how to count complex orders, ``parent/
child'' orders that are broken into multiple orders, and ``cancel/
replace'' orders for Professional order counting purposes.
    Under the Exchange's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional, all orders would count as one single
order for Professional counting purposes, unless otherwise specified
under the Rules. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's
definition of Professional would provide that except as noted below,
each order of any order type counts as one order for Professional order
counting purposes. Paragraph (a) of proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional would discuss complex
orders. Under paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional, a complex order comprised
of eight (8) legs or fewer would count as a single order. Conversely,
paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional would provide that a complex order
comprised of nine (9) legs or more counts as multiple orders with each
option leg counting as its own separate order. The Exchange believes
the distinction between complex orders with up to eight legs from those
with nine or more legs is appropriate in light of the purposes for
which the Exchange's Professional rule was adopted. In particular, the
Exchange notes that multi-leg complex order strategies with nine or
more legs are more complex in nature and thus, more likely to be used
by professional traders than traditional two, three, and four leg
complex order strategies such as the strangle, straddle, butterfly,
collar, condor strategies, and combinations thereof with eight legs or
fewer, which are generally not algorithmically generated and are
frequently used by retail investors. Thus, the types of complex orders
traditionally placed by retail investors would continue to count as
only one order while the more complex strategy orders that are
typically used by professional traders would count as multiple orders
for Professional order counting purposes.
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional would provide details relating to the
counting of ``parent/child'' orders. Under paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional,
a ``parent'' order that is placed for the beneficial account(s) of a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities that is
broken into multiple ``child'' orders on the same side (buy/sell) and
series as the ``parent'' order by a broker or dealer, or by an
algorithm housed at a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed from
a broker or dealer, but which is housed with the customer, counts as
one order even if the ``child'' orders are routed across multiple
exchanges. Essentially, this paragraph would describe how orders placed
for public customers, which are ``worked'' by a broker in order to
receive best execution should be counted for Professional order
counting purposes. Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional would permit larger
``parent'' orders (which may be simple orders or complex orders
consisting of up to eight legs), to be broken into multiple smaller
orders on the same side (buy/sell) and in the same series (or complex
orders consisting of up to eight legs) in order to attempt to achieve
best execution for the overall order.
    For example, if a customer were to enter an order to buy 1,000 XYZ
$5 January calls at a limit price of $1, which the customer's broker
then broke into four separate orders to buy 250 XYZ $5 January calls at
a limit price of $1 in order to achieve a better execution, the four
``child'' orders would still only count as one order for Professional
order counting purposes (whether or not the four separate orders were
sent to the same or different exchanges for execution).\16\ Similarly,
in

the case of a complex order, if a customer were to enter an order to
buy 1,000 XYZ $5 January(sell)/March(buy) calendar spreads (with a 1:1
ratio on the legs), at a net debit limit price of $0.20, which the
customer's broker then broke into four separate orders to buy 250 XYZ
$5 January/March calendar spreads (each with a 1:1 ratio on the legs),
each at a net debit limit price of $0.20, the four ``child'' orders
would still only count as one order for Professional order counting
purposes (whether or not the four separate orders were sent to the same
or different exchanges for execution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Notably, however, if the customer herself were to enter the
same four identical orders to buy 250 XYZ $5 January calls at a
limit price of $1 prior to sending the orders, those orders would
count as four separate orders for Professional order counting
purposes because the orders would not have been broken into multiple
``child'' orders on the same side (buy/sell) and series as the
``parent'' order by a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm housed at
a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed from a broker or
dealer, but which is housed with the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, under paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional, a ``parent'' order
(including a strategy order) \17\ that is broken into multiple
``child'' orders on both sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or multiple
series counts as multiple orders, with each ``child'' order counting as
a new and separate order. Accordingly, under this provision, strategy
orders, which are most often used by sophisticated traders best
characterized as ``Professionals,'' would count as multiple orders for
each child order entered as part of the overall strategy. For example,
if a customer were to enter a volatility order \18\ or ``vega'' order
\19\ with her broker by which multiple ``child'' orders were then sent
to the Exchange across multiple series in a particular option class,
each order entered would count as a separate order for Professional
order counting purposes. Likewise, if the customer instructed her
broker to buy a variety of calls across various option classes as part
of a basket trade, each order entered by the broker in order to obtain
the positions making up the basket would count as a separate order for
Professional counting purposes.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes of this proposed Interpretation and Policy,
the term ``strategy order'' is intended to mean an execution
strategy, trading instruction, or algorithm whereby multiple
``child'' orders on both sides of a series and/or multiple series
are generated prior to being sent to any or multiple U.S. options
exchange(s).
    \18\ A ``volatility'' or ``volatility-type'' order may be
characterized as an order instruction or combination to buy/sell
contracts at a specific implied volatility rather than at a specific
price or premium. Because implied volatility is a key determinant of
the premium on an option, some traders may wish to take positions in
specific contract months in an effort to take advantage of perceived
changes in implied volatility arising before, during, or after
earnings or in a certain company when specific or broad market
volatility is predicted to change. In certain cases, depending on
where a customer's account is housed or the trading capabilities of
the participant involved, an options trader may trade and position
for movements in the price of the option based on implied volatility
using a ``volatility'' or ``volatility-type'' order or trading
instruction by setting a limit for the volatility level they are
willing to pay or receive. In such cases, premiums may be calculated
in percentage terms rather than premiums.
    \19\ An option's vega is a measure of the impact of changes in
the underlying volatility on the option price. Specifically, the
vega of an option expresses the change in the price of the option
for every 1% change in underlying volatility.
    \20\ Notably, with respect to the types of ``parent'' orders
(including strategy orders) described in paragraph (b)(2) to
proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of
Professional, such orders would be received only as multiple
``child'' orders the U.S. options exchange receiving such orders.
The ``parent'' order would be broken apart before being sent by the
participant to the exchange(s) as multiple ``child'' orders. See
supra at note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the distinctions between ``parent'' and
``child'' orders in paragraph (b) to proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional are appropriate. The
Exchange notes that paragraph (b) to proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional is not aimed at capturing
orders that are being ``worked'' or broken into multiple orders to
avoid showing large orders to the market in an effort to elude front-
running and to achieve best execution as is typically done by brokers
on behalf of retail clients. Rather, paragraph (b) to proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional
is aimed at identifying ``child'' orders of ``parent'' orders generated
by algorithms that are typically used by sophisticated traders to
continuously update their orders in concert with market updates in
order to keep their overall trading strategies in balance. The Exchange
believes that these types of ``parent/child'' orders typically used by
sophisticated traders should count as multiple orders.
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional, would discuss the counting of orders
that are cancelled and replaced. Similar to the distinctions drawn in
paragraph (b) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's
definition of Professional, paragraph (c) of proposed Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional would
essentially separate orders that are cancelled and replaced as part of
an overall strategy from those that are cancelled and replaced by a
broker that is ``working'' the order to achieve best execution or
attempting to time the market. Specifically, paragraph (c)(1) of
proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of
Professional would provide that except as otherwise provided in the
rule (and specifically as provided under paragraph (c)(2) to proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of
Professional), any order that cancels and replaces an existing order
counts as a separate order (or multiple new orders in the case of a
complex order comprised of nine (9) legs or more). For example, if a
trader were to enter a non-marketable limit order to buy an option
contract at a certain net debit price, cancel the order in response to
market movements, and then reenter the same order once it became
marketable, those orders would count as two separate orders for
Professional order counting purposes even though the terms of both
orders were the same.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional would specify the exception to
paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional and would provide that an order that
cancels and replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent''
order that is placed for the beneficial account(s) of a person or
entity that is not a broker, or dealer in securities that is broken
into multiple ``child'' orders on the same side (buy/sell) and series
as the ``parent'' order by a broker or dealer, by an algorithm housed
at a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm licensed from a broker or
dealer, but which is housed with the customer, would not count as a new
order. For example, if a customer were to enter an order with her
broker to buy 10,000 XYZ $5 January calls at a limit price of $1, which
the customer's broker then entered, but could not fill and then
cancelled to avoid having to rest the order in the book as part of a
strategy to obtain a better execution for the customer and then
resubmitted the remainder of the order, which would be considered a
``child'' of the ``parent'' order, once it became marketable, such
orders would only count as one order for Professional order counting
purposes. Again, similar to paragraph (b) of proposed Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional, the Exchange
notes that paragraph (c) to proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to
Rule 1.1's definition of Professional is not aimed at capturing orders
that are being ``worked'' or being cancelled and replaced to avoid
showing large orders to the market in an effort to elude front-running
and to achieve best execution as is typically done by brokers on behalf
of retail clients. Rather, paragraph (c) to proposed Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional is

aimed at identifying ``child'' orders of ``parent'' orders generated by
algorithms that are typically used by sophisticated traders to
continuously update their orders in concert with market updates in
order to keep their overall trading strategies in balance. The Exchange
believes that paragraph (c)(2) to proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional is consistent with these
goals.
    Accordingly, consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of proposed
Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional,
under paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to
Rule 1.1's definition of Professional, an order that cancels and
replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent'' order
(including a strategy order) that generates ``child'' orders on both
sides (buy/sell) of a series and/or in multiple series would count as a
new order. For example, if an investor were to seek to make a trade (or
series of trades) to take a long vega position at a certain percentage
limit on a basket of options, the investor may need to cancel and
replace several of the ``child'' orders entered to achieve the overall
execution strategy several times to account for updates in the prices
of the underlyings. In such a case, each ``child'' order placed to keep
the overall execution strategy in place would count as a new and
separate order even if the particular ``child'' order were being used
to replace a slightly different ``child'' order that was previously
being used to keep the same overall execution strategy in place. The
Exchange believes that the distinctions between cancel/replace orders
in paragraph (c) to proposed Rule 1.1's definition of Professional are
appropriate as such orders are typically generated by algorithms used
by sophisticated traders to keep strategy orders continuously in line
with updates in the markets. As such, the Exchange believes that in
most cases, cancel/replace orders should count as multiple orders.
    Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1's definition of Professional would provide that notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (c)(2) above, an order that cancels and
replaces any ``child'' order resulting from a ``parent'' order being
``pegged'' to the Exchange's best bid or offer (``BBO'') or national
best bid or offer (``NBBO'') or that cancels and replaces any ``child''
order pursuant to an algorithm that uses BBO or NBBO in the calculation
of ``child'' orders and attempts to move with or follow the BBO or NBBO
of a series would count as a new order each time the order cancels and
replaces in order to attempt to move with or follow the BBO or NBBO.
The Exchange believes that paragraph (c)(4) is appropriate to make
clear that ``pegged'' strategy orders that are typically used by
sophisticated traders should be counted as multiple orders even though
such orders may cancel/replace orders in on the same side (buy/sell) of
the market in a single series in order to achieve an overall order
strategy.
    Finally, the Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 1.1 to provide
that all Professional orders shall be marked with the appropriate
origin code as determined by the Exchange in order to bring the
Exchange's rules in-line with the Professional order rules of other
exchanges.\21\ The Exchange notes that Permit Holders are already
required to mark orders with appropriate origin codes.\22\ The Exchange
is simply proposing to codify this requirement in the Rules under the
definition of Professional in current Rule 1.1; Permit Holders would
continue to be required to indicate whether public customer orders are
``Professional'' orders as they are currently. To comply with this
requirement, Permit Holders would be required to review their
customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether
orders that are not for the account of a broker or dealer should be
represented as customer orders or Professional orders and make any
appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders
within five days after the end of each calendar quarter. Orders for any
customer that had an average of more than 390 orders per day during any
month of a calendar quarter must be represented as Professional orders
for the next calendar quarter. If, however, during a quarter the
Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being represented
as public customer orders but that has averaged more than 390 orders
per day during a month, the Exchange will notify the Permit Holder and
the Permit Holder will be required to change the manner in which it is
representing the customer's orders within five days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See see [sic] also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
73628 (November 18, 2014), 79 FR 69958 (November 24, 2014) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Professional Orders) (SR-CBOE-2014-085); see also ISE
Regulatory Information Circular 2014-007 (Priority Customer Orders
and Professional Orders (FAQ)).
    \22\ See Regulator Circular C2 RG13-015 (Order Origin
Requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the rule only requires that Permit Holders conduct a look-
back to determine whether their customers are averaging more than 390
orders per day at the end of each calendar quarter, the Exchange
proposes an effective date of July 1, 2016 for proposed Interpretation
and Policy .01 to the definition of Professional in Rule 1.1 to ensure
that all orders during the next quarterly review will be counted in the
same manner and that proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule
1.1(ggg) [sic] will not be applied retroactively.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\23\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \24\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)\25\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that proposed Interpretation
and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's definition of Professional provides a more
conservative order counting regime for Professional order counting
purposes that would identify more traders as Professionals to which the
Exchange's definition of Professional was designed to apply and create
a better competitive balance for all participants on the Exchange,
consistent with the Act. As the options markets have evolved to become
more electronic and more competitive, the Exchange believes that the
distinction between registered broker-dealers and professional traders
who are currently treated as public customers has become increasingly
blurred. More and more, the category of public customer today includes
sophisticated algorithmic traders including former market makers and

hedge funds that trade with a frequency resembling that of broker-
dealers. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable under the Act to
treat those customers who meet the high level of trading activity
established in the proposal differently than customers who do not meet
that threshold and are more typical retail investors to ensure that
professional traders do not take advantage of priority and fee benefits
intended for public customers.
    The Exchange notes that it is not unfair to differentiate between
different types of investors in order to achieve certain marketplace
balances. The Rules currently differentiate between public customers,
broker-dealers, Market-Makers, and the like. These differentiations
have been recognized to be consistent with the Act. The Exchange does
not believe that the current rules of C2 or other exchanges that accord
priority to all public customers over broker-dealers are unfairly
discriminatory. Nor does the Exchange believe that it is unfairly
discriminatory to accord priority to only those customers who on
average do not place more than one order per minute (390 per day) under
the counting regime that the Exchange proposes. The Exchange believes
that such differentiations drive competition in the marketplace and are
within the business judgment of the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange
also believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirement of
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act that the rules of an exchange not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate burden upon competition in that it treats
persons who should be deemed Professionals (but who may not be under
the current Rules), in a manner so that they do not receive special
priority benefits.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors and the public interest by helping to assure
that retail customers continue to receive the appropriate marketplace
advantages in the C2 marketplace as intended, while furthering
competition among marketplace professionals by treating them in the
same manner as other similarly situated market participants. The
Exchange believes that it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
not to afford market participants with similar access to information
and technology as that of brokers and dealers of securities with
marketplace advantages over such marketplace competitors. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed Interpretation and Policy would help to
remove burdens on competition and promote a more competitive
marketplace by affording certain marketplace advantages only to those
for whom they are intended. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change sets forth a more detailed and clear regulatory regime with
respect to calculating average daily order entry for Professional order
counting purposes. The Exchange believes that this additional clarity
and detail will eliminate confusion among market participants, which is
in the interests of all investors and the general public. The Exchange
also believes that codifying the requirement that all Professional
orders shall be marked with the appropriate origin code as determined
by the Exchange will add additional transparency and clarity to the
Rules, which is also in the interests of all investors and the general
public.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the
Exchange does not believe that the current rules of C2 and other
exchanges that accord priority to all public customers over broker-
dealers are unfairly discriminatory. Nor does the Exchange believe that
it is unfairly discriminatory to accord priority to only those
customers who on average do not place more than one order per minute
(390 per day) under the counting regime that the Exchange proposes. The
Exchange believes that its proposal does not impose an undue burden on
competition. The Exchange notes that one of the purposes of the
Professional rules is to help ensure fairness in the marketplace and
promote competition among all market participants. The Exchange
believes that proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 1.1's
definition of Professional would help establish more competition among
market participants and promote the purposes for which the Exchange's
Professional rule was originally adopted. The Exchange does not believe
that the Act requires it to provide the same incentives and discounts
to all market participants equally, so as long as the exchange does not
unfairly discriminate among participants with regard to access to
exchange systems. The Exchange believes that here, that is clearly the
case.
    Rather than burden competition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change promotes competition by ensuring that retail
investors continue to receive the appropriate marketplace advantages in
the C2 marketplace as intended, while furthering competition among
marketplace professionals by treating them in the same manner under the
Rules as other similarly situated market participants by ensuring that
market participants with similar access to information and technology
(i.e. Professionals and broker-dealers), receive similar treatment
under the Rules while retail investors receive the benefits of order
priority and fee waivers that are intended to apply to public
customers.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\27\ A proposed rule
change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative
prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\28\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),
however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission notes that it has considered
substantially similar proposed rule changes filed by CBOE and PHLX
which it approved after a notice and comment period.\30\ This proposed
rule change does not raise any new or novel issues from those
considered in the CBOE or PHLX

proposals. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to
waive the 30-day operative date so that the proposal may take effect
upon filing.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77450 (March 25,
2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2016-005); 77449 (March 25, 2016), 81
FR 18665, (March 31, 2016) (Order Approving SR-Phlx-2016-10).
    \31\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission 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) of the Act \32\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-C2-2016-009 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 No. SR-C2-2016-009. 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, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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 No. SR-C2-2016-009, and should be
submitted on or before July 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15760 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70281]
[DOCID:fr20no08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-1060]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
S.R. 44 Bridge, at mile 1.7, across Mantua Creek at Paulsboro, NJ. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation to
facilitate mechanical repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on December 1, 2008, to
6 p.m. on December 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-1060 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st
Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates this vertical-lift drawbridge, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in
33 CFR 117.729(b) which requires the bridge to open signal from March 1
through November 30 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., and on signal at all other
times upon four hours notice.
    The S.R. 44 Bridge, at mile 1.7, across Mantua Creek has vertical
clearances in the full open and closed positions to vessels of 64 feet
and 5 feet, above mean high water, respectively.
    Under this temporary deviation to facilitate the repairs to the
operating machinery, the S.R. 44 Bridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position beginning at 6 a.m. on Monday, December
1, 2008 until and including 6 p.m. on Wednesday, December 31, 2008.
There are no alternate routes for vessels with a mast height greater
than 5 feet.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the opening restrictions of
the draw span to minimize transiting delays 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: November 6, 2008.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-27520 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17085-17086]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0178; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Multiple Restricted Areas; Eglin AFB, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the name of the using agency for
Restricted Areas R-2914A and B; R-2915A, B and C; R-2918; and R-2919A
and B, with the Eglin Range Complex, FL, to read ``U.S. Air Force,
Commander 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL. This is an administrative
change only and does not affect the boundaries; designated altitudes;
time of designation; or activities conducted within the affected
restricted areas.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, May 2, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As a result of reorganization at Eglin AFB, FL, the name of the
using agency for multiple restricted areas within the Eglin Range
Complex was changed from ``Armament Center'' to ``Test Wing.'' This
action is an administrative name change only and does not affect the
current configuration or use of the restricted areas.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by amending the using agency name for Restricted Areas R-2914A
and B; R-2915A, B and C; R-2918; and R-2919A and B, Eglin AFB, FL, from
``U.S. Air Force, Commander, Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' to
``U.S. Air Force, Commander 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL.'' This is an
administrative change to update the title of the using agency. It does
not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities
conducted within the restricted area; therefore, notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it makes an administrative change to the descriptions of Restricted
Areas R-2914A and B; R-2915A, B and C; R-2918; and R-2919A and B, Eglin
AFB, FL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the
descriptions of the affected restricted area to update the using agency
name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of
designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.29  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.29 is amended as follows:

1. R-2914A Valparaiso, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

2. R-2914B Valparaiso, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

3. R-2915A Eglin AFB, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

4. R-2915B Eglin AFB, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

5. R-2915C Eglin AFB, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

6. R-2918 Valparaiso, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

7. R-2919A Valparaiso, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

8. R-2919B Valparaiso, FL [Amended]

    By removing the words ``Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander,
Air Armament Center, Eglin AFB, FL,'' and inserting the words ``Using
agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 96th Test Wing, Eglin AFB, FL''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-06366 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P