[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27374-27375]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60026; File No. SR-BX-2009-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Market Maker Obligations

June 2, 2009.
    On April 8, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change regarding market
maker obligations. The proposal was published in the Federal Register
on April 28, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59804 (April 21,
2009), 74 FR 19256 (April 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 6 (Market Maker
Quotations) of the BOX Rules to change certain obligations of a Market
Maker regarding the Request for Quote (``RFQ'') process. The proposed
rule change in Section 6(b)(ii) clarifies that within three seconds of
receiving an RFQ, a Market Maker must continuously maintain, without
interruption, a valid two-sided quotation for at least thirty seconds.
If however, during that thirty second time span, the quotation becomes
invalid, the Market Maker must post a valid two sided quotation as soon
as practicable, but within five seconds. The Exchange also proposes to
remove Section 6(d)(ii), which provided that a Market Maker may be
required to submit a single quotation or maintain continuous quotations
in one or more series when called upon by an Options Official, if the
official believes it is necessary to do so in the interest of a fair
and orderly market, and replace it with Section 6(b)(iv). As proposed,
Section 6(b)(iv) will provide that an Options Official may, in the
interest of a fair and orderly market, call upon Market Makers to post
a quotation in the same manner as if an RFQ was issued by an Options
Participant.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 6(d) to establish
market maker quoting standards based upon a percentage of time
measurement. As proposed, the section will clarify that ``continuous
quoting'' reflects quoting parameters based on a daily time measurement
and will remove

references to series and replace them with class. Specifically, a
Market Maker will be required to submit valid quotations on a daily
basis for at least eighty percent (80%) of the time that a class is
open for trading in at least ninety percent (90%) of its appointed
classes. Further, on a daily basis, a Market Maker will be required to
post valid quotations at least sixty percent (60%) of the time in each
of its appointed classes during the time that the class is open for
trading. The Exchange states that this proposed change should allow
Market Makers to focus their strategy on the entire class to which it
is appointed, rather than implementing a strategy utilizing each series
within a class. At the same time, the proposal allows a Market Maker,
if it chooses, to bring more liquidity to the more actively traded
series, rather than focusing on series with less activity.
    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires that an exchange
have rules designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Commission notes that under the proposal, Market Maker quoting
obligations will be based on a daily time measurement, as opposed to a
requirement to continuously provide quotations in a specified
percentage of appointed options. Market Makers will, however, still be
subject to requirements on how often they must quote. Specifically,
Market Makers will be required to submit valid quotations on a daily
basis for at least 80% of the time that a class is open in 90% of their
appointed classes and be required to post valid quotations at least 60%
of the time in each of its appointed classes during the time that the
class is open for trading. The Commission also notes that the proposal
helps to clarify Market Maker quoting obligations in response to an RFQ
or a request by an Options Official to quote in the interest of a fair
and orderly market. The Commission believes these changes are
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2009-020) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13396 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 58021-58023]
[DOCID:fr02oc06-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54505; File No. SR-BSE-2006-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Trade Information Submitted to the Exchange

 September 26, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 15, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The BSE has
filed the proposed rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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).
    \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 amend Section 15 (Audit Trail) of Chapter
V of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') to delete the
language that specifically references the two specific participant
capacity codes and the three specific customer identification codes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site
at http://www.bostonstock.com, at the principal office of the Exchange

and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange states that the proposed rule change mimics the
Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.51 \5\ and the
International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE'') Rule 712 \6\ and
proposes to amend Section 15 (Audit Trail) of Chapter V of the BOX
Rules to delete the language that specifically references the two
specific participant capacity codes and the three specific customer
identification codes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45226 (January 3,
2002), 67 FR 1383 (January 10, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2001-69).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43795 (January 3,
2001),66 FR 2468 (January 11, 2001) (SR-ISE-00-21).
    \7\ Currently, BOX Rules Chapter V, Section 15(b)(vi) and (viii)
statethat order information submitted under BOX Rule Chapter V,
Section 15 must include certain specific participant capacity codes
and customer identification codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter V, Section 15 of the BOX Rules requires members to file
with BOX order information in such form as may be prescribed by the
Exchange. Among the ``order information'' that the rule requires to be
marked on an order ticket \8\ includes ``participant capacity'' and
``customer identification.'' The purpose of these marking requirements
is primarily twofold. First, participant capacity codes and customer
identification codes ensure that orders route to the proper exchange
systems, provide the Boston Options Exchange Regulation LLC (``BOXR'')
with a mechanism by which to surveil whether members are in fact
marking orders correctly and provide BOX with customer information.
Second, the marking requirements assist the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') in the clearance of trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All order tickets are submitted to BOX in electronic form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSE currently lists two participant capacity codes in Chapter V,
Section 15(b)(vi) of the BOX Rules and three customer identification
codes in Chapter V, Section 15(b)(viii) of the BOX Rules.\9\ Because
BOX's participant capacity codes and customer identification codes are
specifically listed in its rules, each time BOX determines to add,
delete, or change a participant capacity code or customer
identification code, BSE must submit a rule filing to the Commission.
This could require several separate rule filings if BOX decided to add
participant capacity codes and customer identification codes at
different times.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BOX currently uses the following participant capacity codes:
(1)Order Flow Provider or (2) Market Maker. See BOX Rules Chapter V,
Section 15(b)(vi). BOX currently uses the following customer
identification codes: (1) Public Customer; (2) Broker-dealer; or (3)
Market Maker. See BOX Rules Chapter V, Section 15(b)(viii).
    \10\ Over the next few months, the Exchange anticipates adding
severalnew identification codes to the BOX system. This could
require the submission of several rule filings if all participant
capacity and customer identification codes are not added at the same
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, since Chapter V, Section 15(a) of the BOX Rules
already provides that ``each Options Participant shall submit order
information in such form as may be prescribed by BOXR. * * *,'' \11\
BSE proposes to delete the language from Chapter V, Section 15(b)(vi)
and (viii) of the BOX Rules that references the two specific
participant capacity codes and three specific customer identification
codes. This change will have two primary effects. First, it would
eliminate the need for BSE to submit a rule filing each time BOX adds,
deletes or changes a participant capacity code or customer
identification code. Second, and more importantly, it would allow BSE
to continue to ensure that members submit requisite trade information,
including participant capacity codes and customer

identification codes, in an Exchange-dictated manner. BSE notes that
the proposed change to Chapter V, Section 15(b)(vi) and (viii) would
not eliminate the requirement that members submit tickets with
participant capacity codes and customer identification codes. Rather,
this change simply eliminates the specific participant capacity codes
and customer identification codes from Chapter V, Section 15(b)(vi) and
(viii) of the BOX Rules. Options Participants would still be required
to submit orders with participant capacity codes and customer
identification codes as may be prescribed by BOXR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX Rules Chapter V, Section 15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon approval of this filing, BSE will notify members of the
current order marking requirements (i.e., valid participant capacity
codes and customer identification codes) by regulatory circular. As
such, each time BOX adds, deletes, or changes a participant capacity
code or customer identification code, BSE will distribute a regulatory
circular to the Options Participants apprising them of the change. BSE
believes that this will ensure that BOX's Options Participants are
aware of the applicable participant capacity codes and customer
identification codes with which it must mark order tickets.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in
that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change would enhance BOX's ability to surveil
for and investigate potential fraudulent and manipulative conduct. The
Exchange further believes that, since the proposed rule change would
enhance BOX's ability to conduct investigations and surveil for
misconduct, it would protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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 proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interests, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSE requests that the Commission waive both the 30-day pre-
operative period specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\16\ The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative period is consistent
with the protection of investors and public interest. BSE's proposed
deletion of the language from Chapter V, Section 15(b)(vi) and (viii)
of the BOX Rules that references certain specific participant capacity
and customer identification codes allows for greater Exchange
flexibility in administering its order ticket marking rules while
maintaining the underlying requirements. According to the Exchange,
this change will eliminate the need for BSE to submit a rule filing
each time BOX adds, deletes or changes a participant capacity code or
customer identification code and will allow BSE to continue to ensure
that members submit requisite trade information, including participant
capacity codes and customer identification codes, in an Exchange-
dictated manner. The change is also consistent with the approaches used
by other self-regulatory organizations.\17\ For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon
filing with the Commission.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ See n. 5-6, supra.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
theCommission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-BSE-2006-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities andExchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-40 and
should

be submitted on or before October 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16165 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18621-18622]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Renewal,
Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on January 19, 2018. The collection involves the submission
of application FAA Form 8710-4 for organizations wishing to conduct
nonpassenger-carrying external-load operations for compensation or
hire. The information to be collected will be used to and/or is
necessary to evaluate the operators request to become or remain
certified as Rotorcraft External-Load Operators.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0044.
    Title: Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8710-4.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on January 19, 2018 (83 FR 2866). Application for
certificate issuance or renewal of a 14 CFR part 133 Rotorcraft
External Load Operator Certificate. Application for an original
certificate or renewal of a certificate issued under 14 CFR part 133 is
made on a form, and in a manner, prescribed by the Administrator. The
FAA form 8710-4 may be obtained from an FAA Flight Standards District
Office. The completed application is sent to the district office that
has jurisdiction over the area in which the applicant's home base of
operation is located.
    The information collected includes: Type of application, Operators
name/DBAs, telephone number, mailing address, physical address of the
principal base of operations, Chief pilot/designee name, airman
certificate grade and number, rotorcraft make/model

registration numbers to be used and load combinations requested.
    Respondents: 357 active 14 CFR part 133 Certificate Holders.
    Frequency: New applications as industry dictates, however, current
14 CFR part 133 certificate holders must renew every 24 months.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 30 minutes per
application.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 89.25 hours per year for 14 CFR part
133 renewals.

    Issued in Fort Worth on April 23, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-08966 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52591-52593]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84401; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees on Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.

October 11, 2018.
    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 October 1, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to add certain fees related to the
listing and trading of options that overlie the Russell 2000 Index
(``RUT options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On September 27, 2018, the Exchange's equity options platform
(``BZX Options'') received approval from the Commission to list and
trade RUT options.\5\ The Exchange intends to begin listing RUT options
for trading on October 1, 2018. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
amend its Fees Schedule for BZX Options to add: (i) An Index License
Surcharge Fee to all Non-Customer transactions in RUT options; (ii) Fee
codes for RUT options that add or remove liquidity on the Exchange; and
(iii) Fee codes for RUT options that are routed away from the Exchange,
effective October 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84298 (September 27,
2018) (SR-CboeBZX-2018-058).

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

RUT Surcharge Fee
    The Exchange proposes to add an Index License Surcharge Fee of
$0.45 per contract to all Non-Customer transactions (i.e., Market Maker
and Away Market Maker, Firm, Broker Dealer, Joint Back Office, and
Professional transactions) in RUT options. The proposed RUT Surcharge
Fee will be assessed on all non-Customer orders that contain one of the
proposed Fee codes described below (BM, BN, BO, GM, GN, and GO).
Fee Codes for RUT Options--Add or Remove Liquidity
    Proposed Fee code BC will be appended to all Customer orders in RUT
options that add or remove liquidity, and result in a standard fee of
$0.15 per contract. Proposed Fee code BM will be appended to all Market
Maker orders in RUT options that add or remove liquidity, and result in
a standard fee of $0.35 per contract. Proposed Fee code BN will be
appended to all Non-Customer and Non-Market Maker orders in RUT options
that add or remove liquidity, and result in a standard fee of $0.55 per
contract. Proposed Fee code BO will be appended to all orders in RUT
options that trade on the open, and will be free. Proposed Footnote 14
attaches to each of the proposed non-Customer Fee codes to the
Surcharge Fee described above.
Fee Codes for RUT Options--Routed Away
    Proposed Fee code GC will be appended to all Customer orders in RUT
options that are routed away from the Exchange and executed at another
exchange, and result in a standard fee of $0.85 per contract. Proposed
Fee code GM will be appended to all Market Maker orders in RUT options
that are routed away from the Exchange and executed at another
exchange, and result in a standard fee of $1.05 per contract. Proposed
Fee code GN will be appended to all Non-Customer and Non-Market Maker
orders in RUT options that are routed away from the Exchange and
executed at another exchange, and result in a standard fee of $1.25 per
contract. Proposed Fee code GO will be appended to all orders in RUT
options that route to another exchange at the open, and will be free.
Proposed Footnote 14 attaches each of these proposed Fee codes to the
Surcharge Fee described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4),\7\
in particular, as it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members
and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes implementing the RUT Surcharge Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the amount will be
assessed to all orders of non-Customer market participants to whom the
RUT Surcharge Fee applies. Not applying the RUT Surcharge Fee to
Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
this is designed to attract Customer RUT orders, which increases
liquidity and provides greater trading opportunities to all market
participants.
    Next, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge different
fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed because the
proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation that exists
today at other options exchanges (for example, the proposed fees are
comparable with fees for other index option products traded on other
exchanges, including RUT).\8\ Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee amounts for RUT orders are reasonable because the proposed
fee amounts are within the range of standard transaction fee amounts
charged for RUT at other options exchanges (i.e., Cboe Options and C2
Options).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., C2 Fees Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees.
    \9\ See e.g., C2 Fees Schedule, Fee Codes and Associated Fees,
which shows that standard transaction fees for RUT orders range from
$0.15 per contract to $0.55 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to other
market participants because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on
the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Moreover, the options industry has
a long history of providing preferential pricing to Customers, and the
Exchange's current Fees Schedule currently does so in many places, as
do the fees structures of many other exchanges. The Exchange notes that
all fee amounts listed as applying to Customers will be applied equally
to all Customers (meaning that all Customers will be assessed the same
amount).
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Market Makers as
compared to other market participants other than Customers because
Market Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of
obligations, including quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not have. Further, these lower fees offered to Market
Makers are intended to incent Market Makers to quote and trade more on
BZX Options, thereby providing more trading opportunities for all
market participants. The Exchange notes that all fee amounts listed as
applying to Market Makers will be applied equally to all Market Makers
(meaning that all Market Makers will be assessed the same amount).
Similarly, the Exchange notes that the RUT fee amounts for each
separate type of other market participant will be assessed equally to
all such market participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be
assessed the same amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed
the same amount, etc.).
    Finally, the Exchange believes its proposed fees for RUT orders
that are routed away from the Exchange are reasonable taking into
account routing costs and also notes that the proposed fees are in line
with amounts assessed by other exchanges.\10\ For the reasons described
above, the Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower routing fees to Customers and Market
Makers as compared to other market participants. The Exchange notes
that routing through the Exchange is voluntary and market participants
can readily direct order flow to another exchange if they deem Exchange
fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., C2 Fees Schedule, Linkage Routing Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to its Fees Schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the RUT fee amounts for
each separate type of market participant will be assessed equally to
all such market

participants. While different fees are assessed to different market
participants in some circumstances, these different market participants
have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed
above. For example, Market Makers have quoting obligations that other
market participants do not have. Further, the proposed fees structure
for RUT is intended to encourage more trading of RUT, which brings
liquidity to the Exchange and benefits all market participants.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule changes
will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed RUT fees are in line with amounts assessed by other exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeBZX-2018-075 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-CboeBZX-2018-075. 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-CboeBZX-2018-075, and should be
submitted on or before November 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22533 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

12/20/2007 06:03 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone NAAQS

Hi folks,

Please find Harvey and John's response to two questions you raised in our last discussion about the ozone risk and exposure assessments.

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/20/2007 06:01 PM -----

Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US

12/20/2007 05:52 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Langstaff/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: response to 2 issues from teleconference with OMB on ozone NAAQS

Lydia,

Below are responses to 2 issues/questions raised by OMB.  These can be forwarded to OMB.

1.  Is there anything that the APEX exposure modeling output can tell us about the relationship between the distribution of ambient concentrations measured at the monitors and the distribution of personal ozone exposures?

Response: The exposure modeling performed (APEX) for ozone looked at population distributions of exposure for each urban area and did not provide information that can address the question raised about the ratios of ambient concentrations to personal exposures for individuals or populations living around each monitor in the urban area.

2.  Can you explain the difference between the ratio of 1.33 given in the Rochester workgroup report relating 8-hr ozone and 24-hr ozone and the ratio of about 2 given in the OAQPS Staff Paper?

Response:  The ratio discussed on p.35 of the Rochester report relates to converting the average of 24-hr averages across all monitors in an urban area to the average of 8-hr averages across all monitors in an urban area.  In contrast, the ratio of about 2 discussed in the OAQPS Staff Paper is relating the average of the 24-hr averages across all monitors in an urban area with the 8-hr average at the highest monitor within that same urban area.   Clearly, these are two very different comparisons which are being done for different purposes.

Harvey

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6457-6458]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-134-001]

Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Baseline Filings

January 31, 2011.
    Take notice that on January 28, 2011, Hill-Lake submitted a revised
baseline filing of their Statement of Operating Conditions for services
provided under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
(NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, February 7, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2486 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8316-8317]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-01063]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Dana Corporation, To
Withdraw Its Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value, From Listing and
Registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc.

February 10, 2006.
    On January 30, 2006, Dana Corporation, a Virginia corporation
(``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $1.00 par value
(``Security''), from

listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') of the Issuer approved
resolutions on December 1, 2005 to withdraw the Security from PCX. The
Issuer stated that the Board determined that delisting the Security
from PCX is in the Issuer's best interest because delisting the
Security will have no impact on the trading volume of the Security,
given the low volume of trading on PCX, and the costs of complying with
the regulatory and administrative requirements associated with PCX
listing are no longer justified. The Issuer stated that the Security is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') and the Issuer
will continue to comply with the rules and regulations of NYSE.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with
applicable rules of PCX by providing PCX with the required documents
governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on
PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the
Security from listing on PCX and shall not affect its continued listing
on NYSE or its obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the
Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before March 9, 2006, comment on
the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
the File Number 1-01063 or;

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-01063. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2216 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23849]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 162

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0952]
RIN 1625-AB95

Inland Waterways Navigation Regulation: Sacramento River, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is confirming the removal of the Decker Island
restricted anchorage area in the Sacramento River. The restricted
anchorage area was needed in the past to prevent non-government vessels
from transiting through or anchoring in the United States Army's tug
and barge anchorage zones. The United States Army relinquished control
of the Island in 1975. A direct final rule detailing the removal of the
restricted anchorage regulation was published in the Federal Register
on January 23, 2013. We received no comments in response, therefore,
the rule will go into effect as scheduled.

DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule published January
23, 2013 (78 FR 4785) is confirmed as April 23, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Lucas Mancini, U.S. Coast Guard Eleventh
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 23, 2013, we published a direct
final rule and request for comment entitled, ``Inland Waterways
Navigation Regulation: Sacramento River, CA'' in the Federal Register
(78 FR 4785). That rule announced our intent to update the inland
waterways navigation regulations by removing the Decker Island
restricted anchorage described in 33 CFR 162.205(c).
    In the direct final rule we notified the public of our intent to
make the rule effective on April 23, 2013, unless an adverse comment,
or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, was received on or
before March 25, 2013. We did not receive any comments or notices of
intent to submit an adverse comment on the rule. Therefore, under 33
CFR 1.05-55(d), we now confirm that the removal of the Decker Island
restricted anchorage will become effective, as scheduled, on April 23,
2013.

    Dated: April 9, 2013.
K.L. Schultz,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2013-09518 Filed 4-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P