[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83185-83189]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99007; File No. SR-BOX-2023-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish IM-
7600-8

November 21, 2023.
    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 November 17, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX'' or the
``Exchange'') 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 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to proposes to establish IM-7600-8. The text
of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of
the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at https://rules.boxexchange.com/rulefilings.

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish IM-7600-8.
Proposed IM-7600-8 codifies current functionality and proposes an
additional enhancement. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
codify current functionality that, upon order entry, the system reduces
a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order to its simplest form, which
also requires a corresponding quantity increase and a price decrease
(for example the system will reduce 6A+3B, 1 time to 2A+B, 3 times for
\1/3\ of the price).\5\ Additionally, the Exchange is proposing that,
if reducing the order to its simplest form results in a net price for
the order that exceeds three decimal places, the system will round the
net price of the Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order to the third
decimal place with the advantage to the initiating side. For purposes
of executing and determining the priority of the component legs of
Complex QOO or multi-leg QOO Orders, the system will calculate the
quantities and prices of the component legs in one cent ($0.01)
increments necessary to achieve the net price of the order. The
component legs of a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order will
execute in one cent ($0.01) increments and the priority of each
component leg will be determined based on its execution price. A
Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order that is reduced to its
simplest form will be executed pursuant to the provisions in Rule 7600
(Qualified Open Outcry Orders--Floor Crossing), including Rule 7600(c)
(Submission of QOO Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The strategy 6A+3B, 1 time for X price is equal to the
strategy 2A+B, 3 times for X/3 of the price. See also infra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Today, BOX Participants may submit a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg
QOO Order with leg ratios that have not been reduced by the highest
common denominator for the component legs of the order. Upon receipt of
such a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order, the system will reduce
the order to its simplest form by dividing the leg quantities by their
highest common denominator.\6\ The system makes a corresponding
reduction to the price of the strategy and a corresponding increase to
the quantity of the strategy so that the net price of the order before
and after the reduction by the highest common denominator is
economically equivalent.\7\ The order is then accepted into the system
and processed according to Exchange rules. The Exchange reduces such
strategy orders to their simplest form to avoid populating the Complex
Order Book \8\ with multiple versions of economically equivalent
strategies which may cause confusion and result in unnecessary demands
on system resources. Currently, when this process of reducing an order
to its simplest form results in a net price with more than three
decimal places (i.e., 1.666...) (``non-conforming strategy price''),
the system rejects the Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order back to
the submitting Participant.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, a Complex QOO Order is submitted as 6A+3B. The
system will reduce the strategy to its simplest form by dividing
each leg by their highest common denominator (i.e., 3), resulting in
2A+B (6A/3 + 3B/3). This operation is performed so that the system
is not replete with multiple versions of economically equivalent
strategies which would populate the Complex Order Book and may cause
confusion and result in unnecessary demands on system resources.
    \7\ For example, if the above Complex Order of 6A+3B was
submitted with a price of 3.30 for the strategy, in addition to
dividing each leg by 3, the system will divide the price by the same
value, resulting in a price of 1.10 (3.30/3) for the reduced
strategy of 2A+B. Additionally, the system would multiply the
quantity of the strategy by 3 so that the net result is a strategy
for 2A+B for 1.10, 3 times. In summary, the strategy 6A+3B, 1 time
for 3.30 is economically equivalent to 2A+B, 3 times for 1.10.
    \8\ The term ``Complex Order Book'' means the electronic book of
Complex Orders maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule
7240(a)(8).
    \9\ The Exchange notes that currently when reducing strategy
orders to their simplest form results in a net price with three or
fewer decimal places, the Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order
is executed pursuant to the provisions in Rule 7600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes a system enhancement to accept a Complex
QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order with a non-conforming strategy price.
Under this proposal, when reducing the leg ratios of the Complex QOO
Order or multi-leg QOO Order, the system will now round a non-
conforming strategy price to a net price with three decimals to the
advantage of the initiating side instead of rejecting such orders. The
order can then be accepted and processed pursuant to Exchange rules.
The Exchange notes that the current priority rules for Complex QOO
Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders will continue to apply. As discussed
above, if the

process of reducing a strategy order to its simplest form results in
the net price of the order that exceeds three decimal places the system
will round the net price of the Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO
Order to the third decimal place with advantage to the initiating side.
For purposes of executing and determining the priority of the component
legs of Complex QOO or multi-leg QOO Orders, the system will calculate
the quantities and prices of the component legs in one cent ($0.01)
increments necessary to achieve the net price of the order. The
component legs of a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order will
execute in one cent ($0.01) increments and the priority of each
component leg will be determined based on its execution price. A
Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order that is reduced to its
simplest form will be executed pursuant to the provisions in Rule 7600
(Qualified Open Outcry Orders--Floor Crossing), including Rule 7600(c)
(Submission of QOO Orders).
    The priority rules for Complex QOO and multi-leg QOO Orders will
apply to Complex QOO and multi-leg QOO Orders with prices rounded
pursuant to proposed IM-7600-8. The Exchange notes that order priority
rules for Complex QOO Orders include that Complex QOO Orders may not
trade through any equal or better priced Public Customer orders on the
Complex Order Book and may not trade through any non-Public Customer
Complex bids or offers on the Complex Order Book that are ranked ahead
of such equal or better priced Public Customer Complex bids or offers,
and may not trade through any non-Public Customer bids or offers on the
Complex Order Book that are priced better than the proposed execution
price. Additionally, the Complex QOO Order may be executed at a price
without giving priority to equivalent bids or offers in the individual
series legs on the initiating side, provided at least one options leg
betters the corresponding bid or offer on the BOX Book by at least one
minimum trading increment as set forth in Rule 7240(b)(1).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BOX Rule 7600(c). The term ``BOX Book'' means the
electronic book of orders on each single option series maintained by
the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule 100(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order priority rules for multi-leg QOO Orders include that each
component series of a multi-leg QOO Order may not trade through any
equal or better priced Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book
for that series or any non-Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX
Book for that series that are ranked ahead of or equal to better priced
Public Customer bids or offers, and may not trade through any non-
Public Customer bids or offers for that series on the BOX Book that are
priced better than the proposed execution price. Specifically, the
initiating side component legs of a multi-leg QOO Order must execute
against the BOX Book as provided by Rules 7600(d) and (h) before
executing against the contra-side multi-leg QOO Order.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX Rule 7600(c). The Exchange notes that the
initiating side of a QOO Order is allocated first against any better
priced bids or offers on the BOX Book, provided that an adequate
book sweep size was provided by the Floor Broker pursuant to
paragraph (h). Next, at the same price as the contra-side of the QOO
Order, if any contracts of the initiating side remain, the
initiating side of the QOO Order will match against Public Customer
Orders on the BOX Book, along with any bids or offers of non-Public
Customers ranked ahead of such Public Customer Orders on the BOX
Book, provided that an adequate book sweep size was provided by the
Floor Broker pursuant to paragraph (h). Multiple bids or offers at
the same price are matched based on time priority. See BOX Rules
7600(d)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples illustrate these concepts:
Example of the Proposed Rounding and Execution of a Complex QOO Order
With a Non-Conforming Price
    A Complex QOO Order is submitted to transact the strategy of 6A+3B
for 12.50, 51 times, where the initiating side is buying (quoted in
terms of the price of buying 6A+3B one time). The system will then
reduce the order 6A+3B to its simplest form, dividing by its highest
common denominator of 3, resulting in an order of 2A+B for a net price
of 4.166... (12.50/3 = 4.166...) and a corresponding increase of the
quantity to 153 (51 * 3). The strategy 2A+B for 4.166..., 153 times, is
the equivalent of 6A+3B for 12.50, 51 times (6A/3+3B/3 = 2A+B). Under
this proposal, the system will round 4.166... in favor of the
initiating side, resulting in an order of 2A+B at a net price of 4.166,
153 times. Although the net price of the order is sub-penny, the
component legs must execute in one cent ($0.01) increments.
Accordingly, to execute at a net price of 4.166, the order will be
executed at split prices of 2A+B for 4.16, 62 times and 2A+B for 4.17,
91 times.\12\ The resulting average execution price per strategy is
4.1659 ((4.16 * 62/153) + (4.17 * 91/153) = 4.1659) with the advantage
to the initiating side of the order.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes that BOX currently utilizes rounding for
the execution of split price transactions on the BOX Trading Floor
when the quantity at each price level is not a natural number. Here,
the current split pricing algorithm rounds the quantity of 2A+B for
4.16 to 62 times and 2A+B for 4.17 to 91 times because the
calculation used to split 2A+B for 4.166, 153 times, results in a
quantity of 61.2 for 4.16 and 91.8 for 4.17. Rounding 61.2 to 62 and
91.8 to 91, in this case, is to the advantage of the initiating side
pursuant to BOX IM-7600-7.
    \13\ Today, when a Floor Broker submits a QOO Order to the
system in sub-minimum increments, the system will split the QOO
Order into two transactions. The transactions are separated by one
tick that, when combined, will yield a net price equal to the
original price entered by the Floor Broker. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 82891 (March 16, 2018), 83 FR 12627 (March 22, 2018)
(Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Adopt Rule 7600(i) To Allow Split-Price Transactions on the BOX
Trading Floor). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87613
(November 25, 2019), 84 FR 66049 (December 2, 2019) (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
Rule 7600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of Complex QOO Order With Resting Public Customer Complex Order
    The above Complex QOO Order (6A+3B for 12.50, 51 times, reduced and
rounded to 2A+B for 4.166, 153 times) would execute a quantity of 62
for 4.16 and a quantity of 91 for 4.17.\14\ However, assuming there is
a Public Customer Complex Order offered at 4.16 on the Complex Order
Book, the above Complex QOO Order for 2A+B will be rejected \15\
because the Public Customer Complex Order at 4.16 on the Complex Order
Book has priority over the Complex QOO Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 10. [sic]
    \15\ The Exchange notes that a Floor Broker may, but is not
required to, provide a book sweep size. The book sweep size is the
number of contracts, if any, of the initiating side of the QOO Order
that the Floor Broker is willing to relinquish to orders and quotes
on the Complex Order Book and the BOX Book that have priority
pursuant to Rule 7240(b)(2) and (3) as well as Rule 7600(c). If the
number of contracts on the Complex Order Book or the BOX Book that
have priority over the contra-side order is greater than the book
sweep size, then the QOO Order will be rejected. If the number of
contracts on the Complex Order Book or BOX Book that have priority
over the contra-side order is less than or equal to the book sweep
size, then the QOO Order will execute. See BOX Rule 7600(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of Multi-Leg QOO Order With Ratio Reduction and No Price
Rounding
    A multi-leg QOO Order to buy 12A+3B for 12.498, 51 times, will
first be reduced to its simplest form of 4A+B (12A/3+3B/3) for 4.166
(12.498/3) and a quantity of 153 (51*3) by the system. In order to
accomplish this execution, the system would create an order to buy 4A+B
for 4.16, 62 times, and an order to buy 4A+B for 4.17, 91 times.\16\
Further, assume that the BOX Book for leg A is 0.50 bid and 0.52
offered and for leg B is 2.00 bid and 2.10 offered. The execution for
4.16 would be broken down into leg A for 0.52 and leg B for 2.08
(4*.52+2.08=4.16). If there were a Public Customer order on the BOX
Book at either 0.52 for leg A or 2.08 for leg

B, the multi-leg QOO Order would be rejected because the Public
Customer Order at either 0.52 for leg A or 2.08 for leg B on the BOX
Book has priority over the leg of the multi-leg QOO Order.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 10. [sic]
    \17\ The Exchange notes that each component series of a multi-
leg QOO Order may not trade through any equal or better priced
Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book for that series or
any non-Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book for that
series that are ranked ahead of or equal to better priced Public
Customer bids or offers, and may not trade through any non-Public
Customer bids or offers for that series on the BOX Book that are
priced better than the proposed execution price. See BOX Rule
7600(c). See also supra notes 9 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of the Proposed Rounding and Execution of a Multi-Leg QOO Order
With a Non-Conforming Price
    A multi-leg QOO Order is submitted to transact the strategy of
12A+3B for 12.50, 51 times, where the initiating side is buying (quoted
in terms of the price of buying 12A+3B one time). The system will then
reduce the order 12A+3B to its simplest form, dividing by its highest
common denominator of 3, resulting in an order of 4A+B for a net price
of 4.166... (12.50/3 = 4.166...) and a corresponding increase of the
quantity to 153 (51*3). The strategy 4A+B for 4.166..., 153 times, is
the equivalent of 12A+3B for 12.50, 51 times (12A/3+3B/3 = 4A+B). Under
this proposal, the system will round 4.166... in favor of the
initiating side, resulting in an order of 4A+B at a net price of 4.166,
153 times. Next, because the net price is sub-penny, the order will be
executed at split prices of 4A+B for 4.16, 62 times and 4A+B for 4.17,
91 times.\18\ The resulting average execution price per strategy is
4.1659 ((4.16 * 62/153) + (4.17 * 91/153) = 4.1659) with the advantage
to the initiating side of the order.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 10. [sic]
    \19\ See supra note 11. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a similar concept exists at another
exchange today.\20\ Specifically, Phlx Options 8, Section
22(a)(2)(E)(i) states that ``rounding of prices may be used only where
necessary to execute the trade at the MPV, and only to the benefit of a
Public Customer order or, where multiple Public Customer orders are
involved, for the Public Customer order that is earliest in time. If no
Public Customer order is involved, rounding of prices is available to
the non-Public Customer order that is earliest in time.'' The Exchange
notes that its proposal differs from Phlx's rule in that the net prices
for Complex QOO Orders or multi-leg QOO Orders will be rounded to the
advantage of the initiating side, which is in line with how rounding
happens on BOX today. Specifically, BOX currently utilizes rounding for
the execution of split price transactions on the BOX Trading Floor when
the quantity at each price level is not a natural number. In its filing
where BOX established split price transactions, the Exchange provided
the following example which shows how rounding occurs in certain
situations where the allocation between two increment prices results in
a fractional amount of contracts.\21\ The example is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Options 8, Section
22(a)(2)(E)(i).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82315 (December 13,
2017), 83 FR 12627 (March 22, 2018) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rule 7600(i) To
Allow Split-Price Transactions on the BOX Trading Floor).

    A Split-Price QOO Order for 301 contracts at $1.025 is received
by the system where the initiating side is to sell. In order to
achieve a net price of $1.025, 150.5 contracts would need to be
executed at $1.00 and 150.5 would need to be executed at $1.05.
However, executions must occur in whole natural numbers. Therefore,
the system will instead round to the advantage of the initiating
side. Specifically, the system will split the order into 151
contracts at $1.05 and 150 at $1.00. The average execution price is
$1.0251 which is a better price for the initiating side (i.e.,
selling 301 contracts for an average price of $1.0251 instead of
$1.025). Two trades would be reported to the tape; a purchase of 151
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracts at $1.05 and a purchase of 150 contracts at $1.00.

    The Exchange notes that, although Complex QOO Order and multi-leg
QOO Order net prices are allowed to be submitted in sub-minimum
increment prices, the order, including the legs, may only be executed
in the minimum increment, which is one cent ($0.01).\22\ Net order
prices are allowed in sub-minimum increments \23\ because net execution
prices can be achieved via split prices where transactions separated by
one tick are combined to yield a net price equal to or very nearly
equal to the order price, with any advantage going to the initiating
side.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See BOX Rules 7050(b) and 7240(b)(1).
    \23\ The Exchange notes that the BOX system allows the net order
price to be entered up to three places after the decimal.
    \24\ For example, a Floor Broker can execute a split price
Complex QOO Order at a price of 2.005 in strategy A+B, 100 times
(100 contracts of A and 100 contracts of B). The order would be
split into A+B for 2.01, 50 times and A+B for 2.00, 50 times for a
net price of 2.005 for the strategy. The following executions would
be reported: 50 Leg A at 1.00, 50 Leg A at 1.00, 50 Leg B at 1.00,
and 50 Leg B at 1.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\25\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 5 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that codifying current functionality that,
upon order entry, the system reduces a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg
QOO Order to its simplest form removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general protects investors and the public interest by providing
clarity and transparency in the handling of certain strategy orders.
Additionally, if the process of reducing a strategy order to its
simplest form results in the net price of the order that exceeds three
decimal places the Exchange proposes to round the net price of the
Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order to the third decimal place
with advantage to the initiating side. For purposes of executing and
determining the priority of the component legs of Complex QOO or multi-
leg QOO Orders, the system will calculate the quantities and prices in
one cent ($0.01) increments of the component legs necessary to achieve
the net price of the order. The component legs of a Complex QOO Order
or multi-leg QOO Order will execute in one cent ($0.01) increments and
the priority of each component leg will be determined based on its
execution price. A Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order that is
reduced to its simplest form will be executed pursuant to the
provisions in Rule 7600 (Qualified Open Outcry Orders--Floor Crossing),
including Rule 7600(c) (Submission of QOO Orders).
    The Exchange believes that allowing investors to enter Complex QOO
Orders and multi-leg QOO Orders without first reducing such orders to
their simplest form allows investors the flexibility to express and
enter orders according to their preferences. In order to better
accommodate these investor preferences, the Exchange reduces such
strategy orders to their simplest form so that the system is not
replete with multiple versions of economically equivalent strategies
which would populate the Complex Order Book and may cause confusion and
result in unnecessary demands on system resources. Thus, the Exchange
believes that accepting and handling such strategy orders as proposed
removes

impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general protects investors and the
public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule is consistent with
current rules on BOX. Specifically, as detailed above, BOX rounds to
the advantage of the initiating side for split-price transactions.\27\
The Exchange believes that rounding to the advantage of the initiating
side in certain situations results in the fair and equitable pricing of
orders among BOX Participants, and provides clarity and transparency in
the Exchange's rules so that all BOX Participants will be informed as
to the net price the Participant is entitled to receive as a result of
rounding. The Exchange believes that rounding to the advantage of the
initiating side is reasonable and appropriate, as the initiating side
is providing liquidity to the Exchange and thus adding value to the
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that order priority rules for Complex QOO Orders
include that Complex QOO Orders may not trade through any equal or
better priced Public Customer orders on the Complex Order Book and may
not trade through any non-Public Customer Complex bids or offers on the
Complex Order Book that are ranked ahead of such equal or better priced
Public Customer Complex bids or offers, and may not trade through any
non-Public Customer bids or offers on the Complex Order Book that are
priced better than the proposed execution price. Additionally, the
Complex QOO Order may be executed at a price without giving priority to
equivalent bids or offers in the individual series legs on the
initiating side, provided at least one options leg betters the
corresponding bid or offer on the BOX Book by at least one minimum
trading increment as set forth in Rule 7240(b)(1).\28\ Order priority
rules for multi-leg QOO Orders include that each component series of a
multi-leg QOO Order may not trade through any equal or better priced
Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book for that series or any
non-Public Customer bids or offers on the BOX Book for that series that
are ranked ahead of or equal to better priced Public Customer bids or
offers, and may not trade through any non-Public Customer bids or
offers for that series on the BOX Book that are priced better than the
proposed execution price. Specifically, the initiating side component
legs of a multi-leg QOO Order must execute against the Complex Order
Book and the BOX Book as provided by Rules 7600(d) and (h) before
executing against the contra-side multi-leg QOO Order.\29\ These
priority rules will continue to be applicable, which the Exchange
believes removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general protects
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See BOX Rule 7600(c).
    \29\ See BOX Rule 7600(c). The Exchange notes that the
initiating side of a QOO Order is allocated first against any better
priced bids or offers on the BOX Book, provided that an adequate
book sweep size was provided by the Floor Broker pursuant to
paragraph (h). Next, at the same price as the contra-side of the QOO
Order, if any contracts of the initiating side remain, the
initiating side of the QOO Order will match against Public Customer
Orders on the BOX Book, along with any bids or offers of non-Public
Customers ranked ahead of such Public Customer Orders on the BOX
Book, provided that an adequate book sweep size was provided by the
Floor Broker pursuant to paragraph (h). Multiple bids or offers at
the same price are matched based on time priority. See BOX Rules
7600(d)(1) and (2). Further rule 7600(h) provides that a Floor
Broker may, but is not required to, provide a book sweep size for
Complex QOO Orders and multi-leg QOO orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange notes that the proposed change will result in
orders being accepted on BOX that BOX's system currently rejects which,
in turn, could result in increased liquidity on BOX to the benefit of
all Participants. As such, BOX believes the proposed rule change is in
the public interest, and therefore, consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the
proposed change is consistent with the rules on BOX \30\ and will allow
BOX to accept orders that it currently rejects, which may result in
increased liquidity to the benefit of all Participants. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed change will not impose any burden on
intramarket competition as the proposed change applies equally to all
Floor Participants who wish to execute Complex QOO Orders or multi-leg
QOO Orders on the BOX Trading Floor. Further, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change will not impose any burden on intermarket
competition as a similar concept currently exists on another exchange
and other exchanges could choose to adopt similar rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See BOX Rule 7600(i) and IM-7600-7. See also supra note 11.
    \31\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received 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 (a)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (b) impose any significant burden on competition; and (c)
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) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\34\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange states
that waiver of the delay will allow the Exchange to immediately begin
accepting orders that the Exchange's system currently rejects, which
will provide investors with the flexibility to express and enter orders
according to their preferences. Additionally, the Exchange states that
accepting and executing orders that would otherwise be rejected may
increase liquidity on the Exchange, which would benefit all Exchange
Participants. The Exchange notes that although orders may be submitted
in sub-minimum increments, priority is determined and orders are
executed in minimum increments of $0.01, and the proposal does not
change order priority and execution as governed by Exchange Rule 7600,
including Exchange Rule 7600(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent

with the protection of investors and the public interest. As described
above, BOX's system reduces complex QOO and multi-leg QOO orders
submitted to the Exchange to their simplest form to avoid populating
the Exchange's Complex Order Book with multiple versions of
economically equivalent strategies. When this process results in a net
price for a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order that exceeds three
decimal places, the Exchange's system currently rejects the Complex QOO
Order or multi-leg QOO Order back to the submitting Participant. Under
the proposal, the Exchange will round the net price of such an order to
the third decimal place with the advantage to the initiating side. This
process will allow the Exchange to accept Complex QOO and multi-leg QOO
Orders that the Exchange's system currently rejects, which will provide
investors with an additional venue for trading these orders. The system
will calculate the quantities and prices, in $0.01 increments, of the
component legs necessary to achieve the net price of a Complex QOO
Order or multi-leg QOO Order, and the component legs of the orders will
execute in $0.01 increments, with their priority based on their
execution prices.\35\ A Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order that
has been reduced to its simplest form will be executed pursuant to
Exchange Rule 7600, including Exchange Rule 7600(c).\36\ As described
above, the process for calculating the quantities and execution prices
of the component legs of a Complex QOO Order or multi-leg QOO Order is
consistent with the process that the Exchange currently uses for
executing split price transactions on the Exchange's trading floor.\37\
For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal operative
upon filing.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See proposed BOX IM-7600-8.
    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See supra note 21 and accompanying text.
    \38\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
file number SR-BOX-2023-28.

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-BOX-2023-22. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to file number SR-BOX-2023-28 and should be submitted on
or before December 19, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26111 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


CARISCH, INC.

681 E LAKE ST.   #262

WAYZATA, MN  55391

TEL:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>

CELL:<PHONE_NUMBER>

e-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy"  November 23, 2010

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 1101)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final Rule: National
Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal
Combustion

Engines

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I am writing in support of the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association's (NRECA) October 19, 2010, Petition for Reconsideration of
portions of the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines promulgated on
August 20, 2010, (75 Fed. Reg. 51,570).

Arby's is a member-owner of Cass County Electric Cooperative Inc. (CCEC)
and is currently participating in its electric load management program
by using our stationary engine generator. The engine generator provides
electric power to our facility during times of peak load conditions. In
the past several years, the total hours of operation logged on the
generator for this program has not exceeded 100 hours.

Inasmuch as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules allow an
emergency use engine generator to operate up to 100 hours annually for
non emergency situations, why should it make any difference how a
business chooses to operate its generator within that 100 hour
limitation? In other words, why are there restrictions within those 100
hours of non-emergency use for peak shaving? The option to use my
generator as part of a peak shaving program on a limited basis is
important to me and helps my cooperative operate its distribution system
most effectively. It seems to me that this small change to your rules
would make the rules more reasonable without sacrificing air quality.

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

November 23, 2010

Page 2

Arby's supports NRECA's petition to remove the restrictions in use of
emergency stationary engine generators as they pertain to use for peak
shaving. Since the EPA has determined that 100 hours of non-emergency
use of a stationary engine generator poses little health risk or
environmental harm above that already contemplated in the rule, I
believe it should not make any difference under what conditions the unit
is operated within that the 100 hours of allowable non emergency
operation.

In conclusion, Arby's respectfully requests the EPA reconsiders its
proposed rule for spark ignition (SI) engines. Assuming the agency
recognizes the common sense logic presented in this letter with regard
to the proposed SI rules, and the proposed changes put forth by NRECA,
we also urge the agency to apply that same logic to the current RICE
rules so as to make the final NESHAP rule consistent and uniform
throughout all stationary engine generators powered by liquid
fossil-fuels.

Arby's respectfully requests consideration of its request and proposed
changes, and thanks the EPA in advance for the same. Thank you for your
prompt attention and 1 look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

George Carisch

Carisch, Inc. DBA Arby’s

cc: 	Robert Wayland, EPA

Melanie King, EPA

Kevin Bromberg, SBA


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2329-2331]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the
requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any
loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on December 3, 2018. The
exemptions expire on December 3, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0056, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 25, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 12 individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (83 FR 53938). The public comment
period ended on November 26, 2018, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. This comment
supported granting these exemptions.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to five years from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an
equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without
the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069)
provides the current MEP recommendations which is the criteria the
Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A summary of each applicant's seizure
history was discussed in the October 25, 2018, Federal Register notice
(83 FR 53938) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These 12 applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 20 years
while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable medication
treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the applicant's
treating physician verified his or her seizure history and supports the
ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder
prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited
above:

Mitchell A. Bowles (GA)

Michael C. Davis, Jr. (SC)
Richard E. Davis (CA)
Nicolas Donez, Jr. (CO)
Scott D. Engelman (PA)
Everett J. Letourneau (MN)
Jason D. Lewis (CA)
Johnny L. Ricks (GA)
Isaac E. Rogers (IL)
Donald J. Smith (NY)
Lucas T. Sorey (NC)
Ronald E. Wagner (OH)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be
valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: January 30, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01252 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13317]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14130-000, 14137-000, 14134-000]

 Riverbank Hydro No. 2, LLC, Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVI,
Qualified Hydro 21, LLC; Notice Announcing Filing Priority for
Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 28, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority between three competing preliminary permit applications with
identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that
none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the other to
develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water
resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this
drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order
of priority is as follows:
    1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVI: Project No. 14137-000.
    2. Qualified Hydro 21, LLC: Project No. 14134-000.
    3. Riverbank Hydro No. 2, LLC: Project No. 14130-000.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5341 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 3403]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5944-024]

Moretown Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Waiver Period for Water
Quality Certification Application

    On December 20, 2022, Moretown Hydroelectric, LLC submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) evidence of the date
on which the certifying agency received the certification request for a
Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed
with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, in
conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6
and section [4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, or 157.22] of the Commission's
regulations,\1\ we hereby notify the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR [4.34(b)(5)/5.23(b)/153.4/157.22].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: December 16, 2022.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (December 16, 2023).
    If the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation fails or
refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before
the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: January 11, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00892 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


299.701, and all information and procedures required for the railroad
and its personnel to implement the program.
    (b) A condensed version of the program that contains only those
items identified as safety-critical, per Sec.  299.703 submitted for
approval by FRA under Sec.  299.713.

Sec.  299.713   Program approval procedure.

    (a) Submission. Except as provided in Sec.  299.445(a)(2), the
railroad shall submit for approval an inspection, testing, and
maintenance program as described in Sec.  299.711(b) not less than 180
days prior to pre-revenue service testing. The program shall be
submitted to FRA in accordance with Sec.  299.9. If the railroad seeks
to amend an approved program as described in Sec.  299.711(b), the
railroad shall file with FRA in accordance with Sec.  299.9 for
approval of such amendment not less than 60 days prior to the proposed
effective date of the amendment. A program responsive to the
requirements of this subpart or any amendment to the program shall not
be implemented prior to FRA approval.
    (b) Contents. Each program or amendment shall contain:
    (1) The information prescribed in Sec.  299.701 for such program or
amendment;
    (2) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary
person to be contacted with regard to review of the program, its
content, or amendments.
    (c) Approval. (1) Within 90 days of receipt of the initial
inspection, testing, and maintenance program, FRA will review the
program. The Associate Administrator will notify the primary railroad
contact person in writing whether the inspection, testing, and
maintenance program is approved and, if not approved, the specific
points in which the program is deficient. Deficiencies identified shall
be addressed as directed by FRA prior to implementing the program.
    (2) FRA will review each proposed amendment to the program that
relaxes an FRA-approved requirement within 45 days of receipt. The
Associate Administrator will then notify the primary railroad contact
person in writing whether the proposed amendment has been approved by
FRA and, if not approved, the specific points in which the proposed
amendment is deficient. The railroad shall correct any deficiencies as
directed by FRA prior to implementing the amendment. For amendments
proposing to make an FRA-approved program requirement more stringent,
the railroad is permitted to implement the amendment prior to obtaining
FRA approval.
    (3) Following initial approval of a program or amendment, FRA may
reopen consideration of the program or amendment for cause stated.
    (4) The railroad may, subject to FRA review and approval under
Sec.  299.15, implement inspection, testing, maintenance procedures and
criteria, incorporating new or emerging technology.

Appendix A to Part 299--Criteria for Certification of Crashworthy Event
Recorder Memory Module

    Section 299.439(c) requires that trainsets be equipped with an
event recorder that includes a certified crashworthy event recorder
memory module. This appendix prescribes the requirements for
certifying an event recorder memory module (ERMM) as crashworthy,
including the performance criteria and test sequence for
establishing the crashworthiness of the ERMM as well as the marking
of the event recorder containing the crashworthy ERMM.

A. General Requirements

    (a) Each manufacturer that represents its ERMM as crashworthy
shall, by marking it as specified in section B of this appendix,
certify that the ERMM meets the performance criteria contained in
this appendix and that test verification data are available to the
railroad or to FRA upon request.
    (b) The test verification data shall contain, at a minimum, all
pertinent original data logs and documentation that the test sample
preparation, test set up, test measuring devices and test procedures
were performed by designated, qualified individuals using recognized
and acceptable practices. Test verification data shall be retained
by the manufacturer or its successor as long as the specific model
of ERMM remains in service on any trainset.

    (c) A crashworthy ERMM shall be marked by its manufacturer as
specified in section B of this appendix.

B. Marking Requirements

    (a) The outer surface of the event recorder containing a
certified crashworthy ERMM shall be colored international orange. In
addition, the outer surface shall be inscribed, on the surface
allowing the most visible area, in black letters on an international
orange background, using the largest type size that can be
accommodated, with the words ``CERTIFIED DOT CRASHWORTHY'', followed
by the ERMM model number (or other such designation), and the name
of the manufacturer of the event recorder. This information may be
displayed as follows:

CERTIFIED DOT CRASHWORTHY
Event Recorder Memory Module Model Number
Manufacturer's Name

    Marking ``CERTIFIED DOT CRASHWORTHY'' on an event recorder designed
for installation in the railroad's trainsets is the certification that
all performance criteria contained in this appendix have been met and
all functions performed by, or on behalf of, the manufacturer whose
name appears as part of the marking, conform to the requirements
specified in this appendix.
    (b) Retro-reflective material shall be applied to the edges of each
visible external surface of an event recorder containing a certified
crashworthy ERMM.

C. Performance Criteria for the ERMM

    An ERMM is crashworthy if it has been successfully tested for
survival under conditions of fire, impact shock, static crush, fluid
immersion, and hydro-static pressure contained in one of the two tables
shown in this section of appendix B. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Each ERMM
must meet the individual performance criteria in the sequence
established in section D of this appendix. A performance criterion is
deemed to be met if, after undergoing a test established in this
appendix B for that criterion, the ERMM has preserved all of the data
stored in it. The data set stored in the ERMM to be tested shall
include all the recording elements required by Sec.  299.439(c). The
following tables describe alternative performance criteria that may be
used when testing an ERMM's crashworthiness. A manufacturer may utilize
either table during its testing but may not combine the criteria
contained in the two tables.

                  Table 1 to Appendix A of Part 299--Acceptable Performance Criteria--Option A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Parameter                         Value                   Duration                 Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire, High Temperature...............  750 [deg]C (1400         60 minutes.............  Heat source: Oven.
                                        [deg]F).
Fire, Low Temperature................  260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F)  10 hours...............  .......................
Impact Shock.........................  55g....................  100 ms.................  \1/2\ sine crash pulse.
Static Crush.........................  110kN (25,000 lbf).....  5 minutes..............  .......................
Fluid Immersion......................  #1 Diesel, #2 Diesel,    Any single fluid, 48     .......................
                                        Water, Salt Water,       hours.
                                        Lube Oil.
                                       Fire Fighting Fluid....  10 minutes, following    Immersion followed by
                                                                 immersion above.         48 hours in a dry
                                                                                location without
                                                                                further disturbance.
Hydrostatic Pressure.................  Depth equivalent = 15    48 hours at nominal      .......................
                                        m. (50 ft.).             temperature of 25
                                                                 [deg]C (77 [deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 2 to Appendix A to Part 299--Acceptable Performance Criteria--Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Parameter                         Value                   Duration                 Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire, High Temperature...............  1000 [deg]C (1832        60 minutes.............  Heat source: Open
                                        [deg]F).                                          flame.
Fire, Low Temperature................  260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F)  10 hours...............  Heat source: Oven.
Impact Shock--Option 1...............  23gs...................  250 ms.................  .......................
Impact Shock--Option 2...............  55gs...................  100 ms.................  \1/2\ sine crash pulse.
Static Crush.........................  111.2kN (25,000 lbf)...  5 minutes..............  Applied to 25% of
                                       44.5kN (10,000 lbf)....  (single ``squeeze'')...   surface of largest
                                                                                face.
Fluid Immersion......................  #1 Diesel, #2 Diesel,    48 hours each..........  .......................
                                        Water, Salt Water,
                                        Lube Oil, Fire
                                        Fighting Fluid.
Hydrostatic Pressure.................  46.62 psig.............  48 hours at nominal      .......................
                                       (= 30.5 m. or 100 ft.).   temperature of 25
                                                                 [deg]C (77 [deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Testing Sequence

    In order to reasonably duplicate the conditions an event recorder
may encounter, the ERMM shall meet the various performance criteria,
described in section C of this appendix, in a set sequence. (See Figure
1). If all tests are done in the set sequence (single branch testing),
the same ERMM must be utilized throughout. If a manufacturer opts for
split branch testing, each branch of the test must be conducted using
an ERMM of the same design type as used for the other branch. Both
alternatives are deemed equivalent, and the choice of single branch
testing or split branch testing may be determined by the party
representing that the ERMM meets the standard.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR20.011

E. Testing Exception

    If a new model ERMM represents an evolution or upgrade from an
older model ERMM that was previously tested and certified as meeting
the performance criteria contained in section C of this appendix, the
new model ERMM need only be tested for compliance with those
performance criteria contained in section C of this appendix that are
potentially affected by the upgrade or modification. FRA will consider
a performance criterion not to be potentially affected if a preliminary
engineering analysis or other pertinent data establishes that the
modification or upgrade will not change the performance of the older
model ERMM against the performance criterion in question. The
manufacturer shall retain and make available to FRA upon request any
analysis or data relied upon to satisfy the requirements of this
paragraph to sustain an exception from testing.

Appendix B to Part 299--Cab Noise Test Protocol

    This appendix prescribes the procedures for the in-cab noise
measurements for high-speed trainsets at speed. The purpose of the
cab noise testing is to ensure that the noise levels within the cab
of the trainset meet the minimum requirements defined within Sec.
299.437(l).

I. Measurement Instrumentation

    The instrumentation used shall conform to the requirements
prescribed in appendix H to part 229 of this chapter.

II. Test Site Requirements

    The test shall meet the following requirements:
    (a) The passenger trainset shall be tested over a representative
segment of the railroad and shall not be tested in any site
specifically designed to artificially lower in-cab noise levels.
    (b) All windows, doors, cabinets, seals, etc., must be installed
in the trainset cab and be closed.
    (c) The heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system
or a dedicated heating or air conditioner system must be operating
on high, and the vents must be open and unobstructed.

III. Procedures for Measurement

    (a) LAeq,T is defined as the A-weighted, equivalent
sound level for a duration of T seconds, and the sound level meter
shall be set for A-weighting with slow response.
    (b) The sound level meter shall be calibrated with the acoustic
calibrator immediately before and after the in-cab tests. The
calibration levels shall be recorded.
    (c) Any change in the before and after calibration level(s)
shall be less than 0.5 dB.
    (d) The sound level meter shall be located:
    (1) Laterally as close as practicable to the longitudinal
centerline of the cab, adjacent to the driver's seat,
    (2) Longitudinally at the center of the driver's nominal seating
position, and
    (3) At a height 1219 mm (48 inches) above the floor.
    (e) The sound measurements shall be taken autonomously within
the cab.
    (f) The sound level shall be recorded at the maximum approved
trainset speed (0/-3 km/h).
    (g) After the passenger trainset speed has become constant at
the maximum test speed and the in-cab noise is continuous,
LAeq,T shall be measured, either directly or using a 1
second sampling interval, for a minimum duration of 30 seconds at
the measurement position (LAeq, 30s).

IV. Reporting

    To demonstrate compliance, the railroad shall prepare and submit
a test report in accordance with Sec.  299.613. As a minimum that
report shall contain--
    (a) Name(s) of person(s) conducting the test, and the date of
the test.
    (b) Description of the passenger trainset cab being tested,
including: car number and date of manufacture.
    (c) Description of sound level meter and calibrator, including:
make, model, type, serial number, and manufacturer's calibration
date.
    (d) The recorded measurement during calibration and for the
microphone location during operating conditions.

    (e) The recorded measurements taken during the conduct of the
test.
    (f) Other information as appropriate to describe the testing
conditions and procedure.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Ronald L. Batory,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2020-03521 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20799-20803]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07773]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88594; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the
NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

April 8, 2020.
    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 April 1, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to raise the existing cap on the available
credit for certain Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') transactions.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 1,
2020. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has
prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the existing cap on the
available credit to Floor Brokers that execute a specified number of
Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') transactions.
    Since March 9, 2020, markets worldwide have been experiencing
unprecedented market-wide declines and volatility that has resulted
from the ongoing spread of the novel COVID-19 virus. In addition,
beginning March 16, 2020, to slow the spread of COVID-19 through
social-distancing measures, significant limitations have been placed on
large gatherings throughout the country.\4\ Shortly thereafter, U.S.
options exchanges that operate physical trading floors, such as Cboe,
Inc. and NASDAQ PHLX, announced the temporarily closure of such floors
as a precautionary measure to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19.
The Exchange likewise announced the temporarily closure of the Trading
Floor, effective March 23, 2020, which meant that Exchange Floor
Brokers could not engage in open outcry trading. Following the floor
closures, including the Exchange's Trading Floor, the Exchange has
experienced an increase in QCC volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, in New York City, which is where the NYSE
Trading Floor is located, public and private schools, universities,
churches, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, and other commercial
establishments where large crowds can gather have been closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Floor Brokers earn a credit for executed QCC orders of
$0.07 per contact up to 300,000 contracts or $0.10 per contract above
300,000.\5\ The Exchange currently limits the maximum Floor Broker
credit to $425,000 per month per Floor Broker firm (the ``Cap'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.F., QCC Fees & Credits, n. 1,
available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. QCC
executions in which a Customer or Professional Customer is on both
sides of the QCC trade are not eligible for the Floor Broker credit.
    \6\ See id. (providing that ``[t]he maximum Floor Broker credit
paid shall not exceed $425,000 per month per Floor Broker firm'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the unanticipated surge in QCC volume that has resulted from
the unprecedented temporary closure of the Trading Floor, the Exchange
proposes to increase the Cap solely for the month of April 2020.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the Cap would remain at
$425,000, except that for the month of April 2020, the Cap would be
$625,000 per Floor Broker firm.\7\ The Exchange believes that this
change would allow Exchange incentives to operate as intended--to
encourage Floor Brokers to execute volume on the Exchange, and for the
period when open outcry is unavailable, to execute all QCC transactions
on Exchange and, for the month of April, to continue to increase the
number of such QCC transactions. The Exchange also believes the
proposed change would also facilitate fair and orderly markets by
attempting to avoid an unintended increase in the cost of Floor
Brokers' QCC trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.F., QCC Fees & Credits,
n. 1 (providing that ``[t]he maximum Floor Broker credit paid shall
not exceed $425,000 per month per Floor Broker firm (the ``Cap''),
except that for the month of April 2020, the Cap will be $625,000
per Floor Broker firm''). The Exchange will re-evaluate the time
limitations on this change (i.e., whether it will need to apply to
May) depending upon how long the Trading Floor remains temporarily
closed and would file a separate proposed rule change if an
extension is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent the proposed change, participating Floor Brokers could
experience an unintended increase in the cost of trading on the
Exchange, a result that is unintended and undesirable to the Exchange
and its Floor Brokers trading QCCs. The Exchange believes that
increasing the Cap for the month of April when the Trading Floor may
continue to be unavailable would provide Floor Brokers with greater
certainty as to their monthly costs and diminish the likelihood of an
effective increase in the cost of trading.
    Moreover, the Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket
competition, as Floor Brokers may direct their order flow to any of the
16 options exchanges, including those with similar QCC rebate programs
and associated caps on same.\8\ Thus, Floor Brokers have a choice of
where they direct their order flow. This proposed change--which
increases the maximum available credit for the month of April 2020--is
designed to incent Floor Brokers to increase their QCC volumes on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to
benefit from increased volume, which promotes market depth, facilitates
tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, and may lead to a
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., NASDAQ PHLX, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section
4. Multiply Listed Options Fees, QCC Rebate Schedule, available
here, http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F1%5F3%5F1&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Dllcrules%2F (providing that ``[t]he maximum
QCC Rebate to be paid in a given month will not exceed $550,000'');
NASDAQ ISE, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 6. Other Options
Fees and Rebates, A. QCC and Solicitation Rebate, available here,
http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/tools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp_1_1_22&manual=/contents/ise/ise-rules/ (providing no cap on the maximum on the amount of QCC rebate
to be paid in a given month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any Floor
Brokers would benefit from this proposed fee change. However, without
this proposed change during a time when Floor Brokers have increasingly
turned to QCCs because the temporary Trading Floor closure prevents
open outcry trading, the Exchange believes the proposed change is
necessary to prevent Floor Brokers from diverting QCC order flow from
the Exchange if and when they hit the Cap.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\10\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based

options, no single exchange currently has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\12\ Therefore, no exchange currently possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange had less than 10% market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades
in January 2020.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \13\ Based on OCC data, see id., in 2019, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options was 9.82% for the month of January
2019 and 8.08% for the month of January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees and credits can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow. The proposed rule
change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of
its market and improve its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as
Floor Brokers may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options
exchanges, including those with similar QCC credit programs and
associated caps on same.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7 [sic] (regarding NASDAQ PHLX's $550,000
monthly cap on QCC rebate and NASDAQ ISE's lack of any such monthly
cap of QCC rebate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the recent uptick in QCC transactions on the Exchange
following the temporary closures of options trading floors--including
the Exchange's Trading Floor, the Exchange believes the proposed
increase to the Cap for the month of April would allow Exchange
incentives to operate as intended and would also facilitate fair and
orderly markets by attempting to avoid an unintended increase in the
cost of Floor Brokers' QCC trading on the Exchange. Absent the proposed
change, participating Floor Brokers could experience an unintended
increase in the cost of trading on the Exchange, a result that is
unintended and undesirable to the Exchange and its Floor Brokers
trading QCCs. The Exchange believes that increasing the Cap for the
month of April when the Trading Floor may continue to be unavailable
would provide Floor Brokers with greater certainty as to their monthly
costs and diminish the likelihood of an effective increase in the cost
of trading.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the proposal is designed to
encourage Floor Brokers to execute all QCC transactions on Exchange
and, for the month of April, to continue to increase the number of such
QCC transactions. The proposal caps fees on all similar (QCC)
transactions, regardless of size and similarly-situated Floor Brokers
can opt to try to achieve the modified (and increased) credit during
the month of April. To the extent that the proposed change attracts
more QCC trades to the Exchange, this increased order flow would
continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other
things, order execution, which, in turn, promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any Floor
Brokers would benefit from this proposed fee change. However, without
this proposed change during a time when Floor Brokers have increasingly
turned to QCCs because the temporary Trading Floor closure prevents
open outcry trading, the Exchange believes the proposed change is
necessary to prevent Floor Brokers from diverting QCC order flow from
the Exchange if and when they hit the Cap.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange during the month of
April and Floor Brokers can opt to avail themselves of the modified Cap
(i.e., by executing more QCC transactions) or not. The proposed change
would incent Floor Brokers to attract increased QCC order flow to the
Exchange that might otherwise go to other options exchanges (e.g.,
NASDAQ ISE has no cap on its rebate).\15\ As the proposal is designed
to encourage Floor Brokers to execute QCC transactions on the Exchange,
any resulting increase in order flow would continue to make the
Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality
for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence,
attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide
quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 7 [sic] (regarding NASDAQ ISE's lack of any
monthly cap of QCC rebate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to modify
the maximum allowable credit on QCC transactions to Floor Brokers
because the proposed modification would be available to all similarly-
situated market participants (i.e., Floor Brokers) on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis.
    The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted
on the Exchange during April 2020 and Floor Brokers are not obligated
to try to achieve the modified Cap. The proposed change would incent
Floor Brokers to attract increased QCC order flow to the Exchange that
might otherwise go to other options exchanges (e.g., NASDAQ ISE has no
cap on its rebate).\16\ As such, the proposal is designed encourage
Floor Brokers to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for
QCC transactions (if they have not done so previously) or increase
volume sent to the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change
attracts more QCC transactions to the Exchange, this increased order
flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for
order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
would improve market quality for all market participants on the
Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The
resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a
public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market
participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 10 [sic], at
37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional order flow (particularly QCC trades) to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed increased QCC Floor Broker credit
would incent Floor Brokers to attract increased QCC order flow to the
Exchange that might otherwise go to other options exchanges (e.g.,
NASDAQ ISE has no cap on its rebate).\18\. [sic] Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants on the Exchange and increased QCC
transactions would increase opportunities for execution of other
trading interest. The proposed increased cap would be available to all
similarly-situated market participants that execute QCC transactions,
and, as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden
on competition among market participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange currently has more than 16% of the market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\19\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
the fourth quarter of 2019, the Exchange had less than 10% market share
of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11 [sic].
    \20\ Based on OCC data, supra note 12, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options was 9.82% for the month of January
2019 and 8.08% for the month of January, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to incent Floor Brokers to attract increased QCC order
flow to the Exchange that might otherwise go to other options exchanges
(e.g., NASDAQ ISE has no cap on its rebate).\21\ To the extent that
Floor Brokers are encouraged to direct trading interest (particularly
QCC transactions) to the Exchange. To the extent that this purpose is
achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from
the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 7 [sic] (regarding NASDAQ ISE's lack of any
monthly cap of QCC rebate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar QCC credits (and caps thereon), by
encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for
execution.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \23\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \24\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-26. 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-NYSEAMER-2020-26 and should be submitted
on or before May 5, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07773 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P