[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17539-17542]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06814]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0215; FRL-9907-97]

Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and
Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period
for several registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic
review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide
continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is,
the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable
adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review
dockets contain information that will assist the public in
understanding the types of information and issues that the

Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through
this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is
based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects
on human health and the environment. This document also announces the
Agency's intent not to open registration review dockets for endosulfan,
tall oil fatty acids and K salts, thiophanate-ethyl, and thiazopyr. The
registrants have decided not to support continued registration of these
pesticides and, therefore, EPA is not planning to open dockets for
these pesticides under the registration review program. EPA is also
announcing the availability of an amended final work plan (FWP) for
chlorinated isocyanurates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: The Chemical Review Manager or Regulatory Action Leader
identified in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest.
    For general information contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this
document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide
product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the
statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5).
When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function
without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is,
without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human
dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in
or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

 A. What action is the agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they
continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, they
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the
Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review
case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present,
EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in
the following table.

                                   Table--Registration Review Dockets Opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager or
Registration review case name and No.                 Docket ID No.                  regulatory action leader,
                                                                                telephone No., email address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aminopyralid (Case 7267).............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0749......................  Veronica Dutch, (703) 308-
                                                                                8585,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Azadioxabicyclooctane (Case 3023)....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0604......................  Sandra O'Neill, (703) 347-
                                                                                0141<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bacillus licheniformis strain SB3086   EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0184......................  Michael Glikes, (703) 305-
 (Case 6014).                                                                       6231,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Clopyralid (Case 7212)...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0167......................  Steven Snyderman, (703) 347-
                                                                                0249,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fenamidone (Case 7033)...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0048......................  Christina Scheltema, (703)
                                                                                308-2201,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Formic acid (Case 6073)..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0105......................  Leonard Cole,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Imazethapyr (Case 7208)..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0774......................  Katherine St. Clair, (703)
                                                                                347-8778,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kaolin (Case 6039)...................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0107......................  Gina Burnett,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lithium hypochlorite (Case 3084).....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0606......................  Donna Kamarei, (703) 347-
                                                                                0443<EMAIL_ADDRESS>MCPA (Case 0017).....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0180......................  Khue Nguyen,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>MCPB and salts (Case 2365)...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0181......................  Khue Nguyen,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Organic esters of phosphoric acid      EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0373......................  SanYvette Williams, (703) 305-
 (Case 4122).                                                                       7702,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Potassium hypochlorite (Case 5076)...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0157......................  Donna Kamarei, (703) 347-
                                                                                0443<EMAIL_ADDRESS>TAED (Case 5105).....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0608......................  SanYvette Williams, (703) 305-
                                                                                7702,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tepraloxydim (Case 7257).............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0246......................  Wilhelmena Livingston, (703)
                                                                                308-8025,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thiabendazole and salts (Case 2670)..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0175......................  Ricardo Jones, (703) 347-
                                                                                0493<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                Sandra O'Neill, (703) 347-
                                                                                0141<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thiophanate-methyl and carbendazim     EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0004......................  Russell Wasem, (703) 305-
 (Case 2680).                                                                       6979<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                Sandra O'Neill, (703) 347-
                                                                                0141<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening dockets for
endosulfan, tall oil fatty acids and K salts, thiophanate-ethyl, and
thiazopyr. Since EPA published a cancellation order on November 10,
2010, announcing that the last endosulfan use will end on July 21, 2016
(75 FR 69065), endosulfan will not be evaluated under registration
review. For tall oil fatty acids and K salts, thiophanate-ethyl, and
thiazopyr, EPA will not be opening registration review dockets because
these pesticides are not included in any products actively registered
under FIFRA section 3. The Agency will take separate actions to cancel
any remaining FIFRA section 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations
with this active ingredient and to propose revocation of any affected
tolerances that are not supported for import purposes only. Finally,
EPA is announcing the availability of an amended FWP for chlorinated
isocyanurates, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0794. This FWP has been
amended to incorporate a change to the data requirements for
registration review.

B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain
information that the Agency may consider in the course of the
registration review. The Agency may include information from its files
including, but not limited to, the following information:
     An overview of the registration review case status.
     A list of current product registrations and registrants.
     Federal Register notices regarding any pending
registration actions.
     Federal Register notices regarding current or pending
tolerances.
     Risk assessments.
     Bibliographies concerning current registrations.
     Summaries of incident data.
     Any other pertinent data or information.
    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency
currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan
for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide
more detailed information. During this public comment period, the
Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional
information they believe the Agency should consider during the
registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each
docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though
comment in any area is welcome.
    2. Other related information. More information on these cases,
including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the
registration review schedule on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm. Information on
the Agency's registration review program and its implementing
regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and

useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any
material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany
any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record.
Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-06814 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 48523-48524]
[DOCID:fr23se09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2016-207]

Tacoma Power; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 16, 2009.
    a. Type of Application: Amendment Recreation Facilities Plan.
    b. Project Number: 2016-207.
    c. Date Filed: August 25, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Tacoma Power.
    e. Name of Project: Cowlitz River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Cowlitz River in Lewis
County, Washington, and occupies Federal lands administered by the U.S.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Cindy Swanberg, Tacoma Power, 3628 South
35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Christopher Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: October 16, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Tacoma Power proposes to amend the
project's approved recreation plan by deleting a requirement to
lengthen an existing boat dock at the Mossyrock Park Boat Launch.
Instead the licensee proposes to build a new loading dock that is
designed to be used during low reservoir levels at the Taidnapam North
Boat launch, which was completed in 2008 pursuant to the approved
recreation plan. The licensee states that the new configuration will
better serve the boating public while eliminating the environmental and
aesthetic impacts associated with extending the existing dock at
Mossyrock Park. In developing the application, the licensee consulted
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission, Washington Recreation and Conservation Office,
and Lewis County, Washington.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-2016) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-2016-207).
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22857 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 59309-59310]
[DOCID:fr27se10-143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62951; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-087]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
CBSX Market-Maker Obligations

September 20, 2010.
    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 17, 2010, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``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 Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Stock Exchange's (``CBSX'',
the CBOE's stock trading facility) rules to enhance quotation
requirements. The text of the rule proposal is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

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 Exchange proposes to adopt rules to enhance minimum quotation
requirements for CBSX Remote Market-Makers, CBSX Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``CBSX DPMs''), and CBSX Lead Market-Makers (``CBSX
LMMs'') (collectively ``CBSX Market-Makers''). Under the proposal, the
Exchange will amend Rules 53.23, Obligations of CBSX Remote Market-
Makers, and Rule 53.56, CBSX DPM Obligations,\3\ to require CBSX
Market-Makers for each stock in which they are registered to
continuously maintain a two-sided quotation within a designated
percentage of the National Best Bid and National Best Offer as
appropriate during CBSX Regular Trading Hours after the primary listing
market has disseminated an opening quote in the stock on a given
trading day.\4\ These enhanced market maker quotation obligations and
[sic] are intended to eliminate trade executions against market maker
placeholder quotations traditionally priced far away from the inside
market, commonly known as ``stub quotes.'' They are also intended to
augment and work in relation to the single stock pause standards
already in place on a pilot basis for stocks in the S&P 500, the
Russell 1000 and certain exchange-trade products.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that no change is necessary to the text
related to CBSX LMM obligations as existing Rule 53.51, CBSX LMM
Defined, already provides that CBSX LMMs will have the same
obligations of CBSX Remote Market-Makers plus those additional
obligations of CBSX DPMs.
    \4\ A CBSX Remote Market-Maker would be obligated to provide
continuous quotes only when the CBSX Remote Market-Maker is quoting
in a particular security during CBSX Regular Trading Hours after the
primary listing market has disseminated an opening quote in the
stock on a given trading day. See proposed Rule 53.23.01(a), which
is similar to CBOE's existing rule for options Market-Makers, Rule
8.7(d)(iii). A CBSX DPM or CBSX LMM would be obligated to provide
continuous quotes during the CBSX Regular Trading Hours after the
primary listing market has disseminated an opening quote in the
stock on a given trading day. See proposed Rule 53.56.01(a), which
is similar to CBOE's existing rules for options DPMs and LMMs, Rules
8.85(a)(i) and 8.15A(b)(i).
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 62252 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR
34186 (June 16, 2010) and 62886 (September 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange will require CBSX Market-Makers to
enter and maintain quotes priced at no more than a certain percentage
away from the national inside bid and offer. Permissible quotes are
determined by the individual character of the security, the time of day
in which the quote is entered, and other factors which are summarized
below:
    For issues subject to an individual stock trading trigger pause, a
permissible quote is determined by first looking at the applicable
stock trading pause trigger percentage of the security and then
reducing that number by 2%. Since currently the stock pause trigger
percentage across all exchanges is 10%, a CBSX Market-Maker's quote in
a such a security may not be more than 8% away from the national best
bid or best offer as appropriate. Once a compliant quote is entered, it
may rest without adjustment until such time as it moves to within \1/2\
of 1% of the applicable trigger pause percentage (i.e., currently 9.5%)
whereupon the CBSX Market-Maker must immediately move its quote back to
at least the permissible default level of 8% away from the national
best bid or best offer. During times in which a trigger pause
percentage is not applicable (e.g., before 8:45 a.m. and after 2:35
p.m. Chicago Time), a market maker must maintain a quote no further
than 20% away from the inside (i.e., it may rest without adjustment
until it reaches 21.5%). In the absence of national best or best offer,
the above calculations will remain the same, but will use the national
last sale instead of the absent bid or offer.
    For securities not subject to any individual stock pause trigger,
the proposal will a [sic] assume a hypothetical 32% trigger pause,
apply a 2% reduction, and require CBSX Market-Makers in those issues to
maintain quotes no more than 30% away from the national best and
national best offer. Like securities subject to stock trading pauses,
once a compliant quote is entered, it may rest without adjustment until
such time as it moves to within \1/2\ of 1% of its

applicable trigger pause percentage (31.5%) whereupon the CBSX Market-
Maker must immediately move its quote back to at least the permissible
default level of 30%. These requirements shall apply to Regulation NMS
stocks during CBSX Regular Trading Hours after the primary listing
market has disseminated an opening quote in the stock for the given
trading day.
    Nothing in the above precludes a CBSX Market-Maker from voluntarily
quoting at price levels that are closer to the national best bid and
best offer than required under the proposal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\6\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, 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
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \7\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in
that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning
minimum market maker quotation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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 neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-087 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-087. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-087 and should be
submitted on or before October 18, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24055 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18652-18654]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07011]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69204; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Sections I and II of the Pricing Schedule

March 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 15, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Section I entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity
in Select Symbols,'' \3\ and Section II entitled ``Multiply Listed
Options Fees.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rebates and fees in Section I apply to certain Select
Symbols which are listed in Section I of the Pricing Schedule. The
Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Pricing Schedule.
    \4\ The pricing in Section II includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on April 1,
2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 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 increase certain
Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity and Firm Options Transaction
Charges in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options. Despite the increase to
these fees, the Exchange believes that the fees remain competitive with
fees assessed by other options exchanges. The Exchange is also
proposing to waive the Firm Options Transaction Charge for the buy side
of a transaction if the same member is both the buyer and seller of a
Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own proprietary
account in order to incentivize Firms to add and remove liquidity in
the market.
Section I Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Simple Order fees in Section I,
Part A of the Pricing Schedule which apply to Select Symbols.
Currently, the Exchange pays the following Simple Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity: Customer $0.00 per contract and a Specialist,\5\
Market Maker,\6\ Firm, Broker-Dealer and Professional \7\ $0.44 per
contract. The Exchange proposes to amend the Simple Order Fees for
Adding Liquidity by increasing Specialist, Market Maker, Firm, Broker-
Dealer and Professional fees from $0.44 to $0.45 per contract. The
Exchange proposes to continue to assess Customers no Fee for Removing
Liquidity in Simple Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \6\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \7\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to increase the Firm electronic Options
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options from $0.44 to $0.45 per
contract. The Exchange also proposes to amend the Firm electronic
Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.45 to
$0.50 per contract.
    The Exchange proposes to waive the Firm Floor Options Transaction
Charge for the buy side of a transaction if the Firm represents both
sides of a Firm transaction when such members or its affiliates under
Common Ownership \8\ are trading in their own proprietary account.\9\
The Firm Floor Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny
Options are $0.25 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to relocate
another Firm Options Transaction Charges waiver for members executing
facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such members
are trading in their own proprietary account (including FLEX and
Cabinet Options Transaction Charges) to a new bullet on the Pricing
Schedule and amend that text to clarify that the waiver applies to
Floor Options Transaction Charges, which the Exchange proposes to
capitalize for consistency. The Exchange also proposes to capitalize
the terms ``Floor'' and ``Options Transaction Charge'' in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Common Ownership is defined as members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control. See Preface to
the Exchange's Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ This waiver does not apply to electronic transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Simple Order Fees For
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols from $0.44 to $0.45 per contract
is reasonable because the fees will continue to remain

competitive with fees assessed by other options exchanges.\12\ The
Exchange believes that increasing the Simple Order Fees For Removing
Liquidity in Select Symbols from $0.44 to $0.45 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
assess all market participants, except Customers, a $0.45 per contract
Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols. The Exchange
proposes to assess no Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity to
Customers because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NYSE Arca, Inc. assesses Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers,
Lead Market Maker and NYSE Arca Market Makers a $0.45 take fee for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot Issues. See NYSE Arca, Inc.'s
Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Firm Options Transaction
Charge in Penny Pilot Options from $0.44 to $0.45 per contract
reasonable because this fee is within the range of other fees in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange currently assesses an
electronic Broker-Dealer Firm Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot
Options of $0.45 per contract. The Exchange believes that increasing
the Firm Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from
$0.45 to $0.50 per contract is reasonable because this fee is within
the range of other fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange currently assesses an electronic Broker-Dealer Firm Options
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of $0.60 per contract. The
Exchange generally assesses lower fees for Penny Pilot Options as
compared to non-Penny Pilot Option because those securities are among
the most actively traded and liquid options. This is the case today for
Specialist, Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Fees.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange assesses Specialists and Market Makers an
electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.22 per contract and an electronic Options Transaction Charge in
non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.23 per contract. The Exchange assesses
Broker-Dealers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny
Pilot Options of $0.45 per contract and an electronic Options
Transaction Charge in non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.60 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Firm Options Transaction
Charge in Penny Pilot Options from $0.44 to $0.45 per contract and
increasing the Firm Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot
Options from $0.45 to $0.50 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the reasons which follow. Firms will continue to be
assessed a higher fee than a Customer who pays no fee to transact
electronic Penny Pilot or Non-Penny Pilot Options. Customer order flow
brings unique benefits to the market which benefits all market
participants through increased liquidity. Firms will continue to be
assessed higher fees than Specialists and Market Makers in electronic
Penny Pilot Options \14\ and Non-Penny Pilot Options \15\ because
Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants. They have obligations to make continuous markets, engage
in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or offers
or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of
dealings. The proposed differentiation as between Customers,
Specialists and Market Makers and other market participants recognizes
the differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading
environment on the Exchange by these market participants, as well as
the differing mix of orders entered. Broker-Dealers and Firms today pay
higher fees as compared to a Professional for electronic Penny Pilot
Options \16\ and Non-Penny Pilot \17\ transactions and this would not
change. Professionals have access to more information and technological
advantages as compared to Customers and Professionals do not bear the
obligations of Specialists or Market Makers. Also, Professionals engage
in trading activity similar to that conducted by Specialists or Market
Makers. For example, Professionals continue to join bids and offers on
the Exchange and thus compete for incoming order flow. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that Professionals may be priced higher
than a Customer and may be priced equal to or higher than a Specialist
or Market Maker. Finally, the Firm will be assessed fees which are
equal to or lower than a Broker-Dealer. The Exchange believes that
increasing the Firm electronic Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Options
Transaction Charges does not misalign the current rate differentials
between a Broker-Dealer and a Firm because the Exchange is eliminating
the differential in electronic Penny Pilot Options and narrowing the
differential from $0.15 to $0.10 per contract in electronic Non-Penny
Pilot Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed Floor Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charges of $0.22 per contract and Floor
Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges of $0.23 per contract.
    \15\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed electronic Non-
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges of $0.23 per contract.
    \16\ Professionals are assessed electronic Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges of $0.30 per contract.
    \17\ Professionals are assessed electronic Non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charges of $0.30 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that assessing higher electronic Firm Options
Transaction Charges in both Penny Pilot ($0.45 per contract) and non-
Penny Pilot Options ($0.50 per contract) as compared to a Firm Floor
Options Transaction Charge in both Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot
Options of $0.25 per contract is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because these fees recognize the distinction between the
floor order entry model and the electronic model and the proposed fees
respond to competition along the same lines.\18\ Floor participants
incur costs associated with accessing the floor, i.e. need for a floor
broker, and other costs which are not born by electronic members.
Today, the Exchange assesses different fees for electronic as compared
to floor transactions for Professionals, Specialists and Market Makers,
Broker-Dealers and Firms in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A transaction resulting from an order that was
electronically delivered utilizes Phlx XL. See Exchange Rules 1014
and 1080. Electronically delivered orders do not include orders
transacted on the Exchange floor. A transaction resulting from an
order that is non-electronically-delivered is represented on the
trading floor by a floor broker. See Exchange Rule 1063. All orders
will be either electronically or non-electronically delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to waive the Firm Floor
Options Transaction Charge for the buy side of a transaction if the
same member or its affiliates under Common Ownership is both the buyer
and seller of a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their
own proprietary account is reasonable because the Exchange is proposing
to not assess fees to both sides of that transaction in the instance
where a Firm is moving positions within the Firm and is both the buyer
and the seller. For example, a Firm on the Exchange's trading floor may
determine to move positions within the Firm and today the transaction
results in an Options Transaction Charge to both sides of the trade.
The Exchange believes as long as the Firm is the buyer and seller for a
trade in the Firm's proprietary account, it is reasonable to apply only
one Options Transaction Charge.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to waive the Firm Floor Options
Transaction Charge for the buy side of a transaction if the same member
or its affiliate under Common Ownership is both the buyer and seller of
a Firm transaction when such members are trading in their own
proprietary account

is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
intends to apply the waiver uniformly to all Firms that trade in this
manner in their proprietary account, even if certain members and chose
to operate under separate entities.
    The Exchange believes that the amendment to relocate the sentence
referencing the waiver of the Firm Options Transaction Charges for
members executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064
when such members are trading in their own proprietary account
(including FLEX and Cabinet Options Transaction Charges) to a new
bullet on the Pricing Schedule, amending the rule text to clarify that
the waiver applies to Floor Options Transaction Charges, and
capitalizing the words ``Options Transaction Charges'' are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is not
proposing to amend the application of the waiver, but believes that
grouping the Firm waivers separately in a new bullet on the Pricing
Schedule, capitalizing terms for consistency in Section II and
clarifying that the waiver is a floor waiver will prevent confusion
among market participants.

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. The Exchange operates in a
highly competitive market, comprised of eleven exchanges, in which
market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are
assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange described in the above
proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore
must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other
venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange
rather than competing venues.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the Simple Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols and Firm Options Transaction
Charges in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options does not impose a burden
on competition. The fees proposed herein are consistent with fees on
other options exchanges and other fees assessed by Phlx.\19\ In
addition, the Exchange believes that the increase to the Simple Order
Fees for Removing Liquidity will impose the same fees on all members,
except Customers. Customer order flow brings liquidity to the market
and benefits all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca, Inc.'s Fee Schedule and Section II of the
Phlx Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the increase to the Firm Fees, the Exchange
believes that those fee increases do not misalign the current rate
differentials as between market participants, but serves to narrow or
eliminate in the case of Firm Penny Pilot Options the fee differential.
In addition, the Exchange is offering Firms an opportunity to eliminate
Options Transaction Charges by encouraging Firms to take liquidity. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will continue to
promote competition on the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-31 and should be
submitted on or before April 17, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07011 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8094-8095]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3312]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-66355]

Reporting Line for the Commission's Inspector General

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
amending its rules to conform them to amendments made to the Inspector
General Act of 1978 that require the Commission's Inspector General to
report to and be under the general supervision of the full Commission.

DATES: Effective Date: February 14, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Beth Sullivan, Counsel, Office of
the Inspector General, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

    Section 8G(d)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (``IG Act'')
\1\ provides: ``Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the
general supervision of the head of the designated Federal entity, but
shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer
or employee of such designated Federal entity.'' Prior to the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank
Act''),\2\ section 8G(a)(4) of the IG Act defined the ``head of the
designated Federal entity'' to mean, unless specifically designated by
statute, the chief policymaking officer or board of the designated
Federal entity as identified in a list published annually by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''). OMB's annual
lists identified the ``Chairperson'' as the head of the SEC. Section
989B of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the IG Act to provide that the
``head of the designated Federal entity'' with a board or commission
(such as the SEC) means ``the board or commission of the designated
Federal entity * * * .'' Accordingly, the Inspector General must now
report to, and be under the general supervision of, the full
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 95-452; 92 Stat. 1101 (1978), as amended.
    \2\ Public Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These amendments conform the Commission's rules that address the
reporting line of the Commission's Inspector General to the amendments
made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the IG Act by replacing references to the
``Chairman'' in these rules with references to the ``Commission''.

II. Related Matters

A. Administrative Procedure Act and Other Administrative Laws

    The Commission has determined that these amendments to its rules
relate solely to the agency's organization, procedure, or practice.
Accordingly, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
regarding notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public
participation are not applicable.\3\ The Regulatory Flexibility Act,
therefore, does not apply.\4\ Because these rules relate solely to the
agency's organization, procedure, or practice and do not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, they are not
subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.\5\
Finally, these amendments do not contain any collection of information
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as
amended.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 804.
    \6\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits imposed by
its rules. The amendments adopted today are procedural in nature and
will produce the benefit of conforming the Commission's rules to
amendments made to the IG Act that require the Commission's Inspector
General to report to and be under the general supervision of the full
Commission. The Commission also believes that these amendments will not
impose any costs on non-agency parties, or that if there are any such
costs, they are negligible.

C. Consideration of Burden on Competition

    Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, in
making rules pursuant to any provision of the Exchange Act, to consider
among other

matters the impact any such rule would have on competition. The
Commission does not believe that the amendments that the Commission is
adopting today will have any impact on competition.

    Statutory Authority: The amendments to the Commission's rules
are adopted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78mm,
80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202; 5 U.S.C. App. (Inspector General Act of
1978) Sec.  8G; and Sec.  989B of Pub. L. 111-203 (2010).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government
agencies).

Text of Amendments

    In accordance with the preamble, the Commission hereby amends Title
17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

Subpart A--Organization and Program Management

0
1. The authority citation for Part 200, Subpart A, is amended by adding
the following citation, in numerical order, to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w,
78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted.
    Section 200.16a is also issued under Sec. 989B of Pub. L. 111-
203 (2010), 124 Stat. 1376; and 5 U.S.C. App. (Inspector General Act
of 1978) Sec. 8G.

* * * * *

0
2. Sec.  200.16a is amended by removing the word ``Chairman'' and
adding in its place the word ``Commission'' in paragraphs (b) and (c)
wherever it appears.

    Dated: February 8, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3312 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57944-57948]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20502]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95810; File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 519, MIAX Emerald Order Monitor

September 16, 2022.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 9, 2022, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX
Emerald'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Emerald
Order Monitor.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald at MIAX
Emerald's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Emerald
Order Monitor to (i) establish an

Exchange default Threshold Setting for market orders \3\ to sell an
option when the national best bid is zero; (ii) provide that a Member
\4\ may supply their own pre-set value to be used as the Threshold
Setting; (iii) reorganize the rule text for ease of reference; and (iv)
adopt new rule text to add additional detail regarding the Exchange's
process for evaluating and reevaluating market orders to sell. The
Exchange notes that its proposal harmonizes the operation of Rule 519
to that of its affiliate exchanges, MIAX Options and MIAX Pearl that
have recently amended this rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A market order is an order to buy or sell a stated number of
option contracts at the best price available at the time of
execution. See Exchange Rule 516(a).
    \4\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 95001 (May 27,
2022), 87 FR 33854 (June 3, 2022) (SR-MIAX-2022-22); and 95000 (May
27, 2022), 87 FR 33862 (June 3, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, in order to avoid the occurrence of potential obvious or
catastrophic errors on the Exchange the MIAX Emerald Order Monitor will
prevent certain orders from executing or being placed on the Book \6\
at prices outside pre-set standard limits. Beginning after the Opening
Process \7\ is complete, the MIAX Emerald Order Monitor is operational
each trading day until the close of trading.\8\ Exchange Rule
519(a)(1)(i) provides that if the Exchange upon initial receipt or
reevaluation \9\ evaluates a market order to sell an option when the
national best bid is zero and the Exchange's disseminated offer is
equal to or less than $0.10, the System \10\ will convert the market
order to sell to a limit order to sell with a limit price of one
minimum trading increment.\11\ In this case, such sell orders will
automatically be placed on the Book in time priority and will be
displayed at the appropriate Minimum Price Variation.\12\ Exchange Rule
519(a)(1)(ii) provides that if the Exchange upon initial receipt or
reevaluation evaluates a market order to sell an option when the
national best bid is zero and the national best offer is greater than
$0.10, the System will cancel the market order to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Book'' means the electronic book of buy and sell
orders and quotes maintained by the System. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 503.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 519(a).
    \9\ A reevaluation of an order occurs when an order has been
partially filled on the Exchange, or has been routed to an away
exchange and is returned to the Exchange partially or completely
unfilled, and the resulting national best bid is zero.
    \10\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 510.
    \12\ See Exchange Rule 510(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to allow Members to determine their own
pre-set value to be used as the threshold setting (``Threshold
Setting'') that the Exchange will use when evaluating market orders to
sell when the national best bid is zero and the national best offer is
less than, equal to, or greater than, the Threshold Setting. Members
are not constrained by the Exchange in determining their Threshold
Setting and may set the threshold at any value in accordance to their
business and risk tolerances. Members will communicate their desired
threshold value to the Exchange's Help Desk.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Help Desk'' means the Exchange's control room
consisting of Exchange staff authorized to make certain
determinations on behalf of the Exchange. The Help Desk shall report
to and be supervised by a senior executive of the Exchange. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (i)
to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, ``[f]or the purposes
of this Rule a Member may establish a pre-set value to be used as the
Threshold Setting by communicating its value to the Exchange's Help
Desk in a form and manner to be determined by the Exchange and
communicated via Regulatory Circular.\14\ The Exchange will establish a
default Threshold Setting of $0.10 \15\ and communicate its value to
Members via Regulatory Circular. If a Member does not establish a
Threshold Setting the Exchange default value will be used.'' Currently,
the Exchange uses a value of $0.10 as its threshold value for purposes
of evaluating or reevaluating market orders to sell when the national
best bid is zero.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Requests to establish a Threshold Setting are received by
the Help Desk and are processed for implementation on the next
trading day.
    \15\ The Exchange proposes to convert its current $0.10
threshold setting to the Exchange default Threshold Setting.
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (ii) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange receives a market
order to sell an option when the national best bid is zero and the
national best offer is less than or equal to the Threshold Setting, the
System will convert the market order to sell, to a limit order to sell,
with a limit price of one minimum trading increment.\17\ The Exchange
proposes to use the national best offer as the reference price in
determining how to handle a market order to sell when the national best
bid is zero as the national best offer better represents the current
market conditions.\18\ This provision is consistent with the operation
of the current rule, however the Threshold Setting used for evaluation
purposes under the Exchange's proposal may now be either the Exchange's
default setting of $0.10 or the Member's Threshold Setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum
Trading Increments.
    \18\ The Exchange notes that its current rule uses the
Exchange's disseminated offer for evaluation purposes however the
Exchange proposes to use the national best offer for consistency and
uniform application of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (iii) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange reevaluates a
market order to sell an option when the resulting national best bid is
zero and either the trade price, route price, or national best offer is
less than or equal to the Threshold Setting, the System will convert
the market order to sell, to a limit order to sell, with a limit price
of one minimum trading increment.\19\ For the purposes of this rule,
the execution price of a trade in the subject series is considered the
``trade price.'' In the event the Exchange receives a market order to
sell and the Exchange is zero bid but an away market is not, the
Exchange will route the order to that away exchange at the away market
price, the ``route price.'' The Exchange uses the route price, trade
price, or national best offer to determine the proper disposition of a
market order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Market orders converted to limit orders under Rule 519 are
posted to the Book with a time in force of Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current paragraph (i) describes the initial evaluation and
reevaluation process of a market order to sell whereas each process is
given separate treatment under this proposal. Specifically, new
proposed paragraph (ii) describes the initial evaluation process of a
market order to sell when the national best bid is zero and new
proposed paragraph (iii) describes the reevaluation process of a market
order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero. The Exchange
believes this format provides additional clarity to the Exchange's
rules regarding its order handling process when the Exchange
reevaluates a market order to sell when the national best bid becomes
zero.

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (iv) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, in either case of (ii) or (iii)
above, such sell orders will automatically be placed on the Book in
time priority and will be displayed at the appropriate Minimum Price
Variation.\20\ The Exchange notes that this language is substantially
similar to the current rule text.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchange Rule 510(a).
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 519(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (v) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange receives a market
order to sell an option when the national best bid is zero and the
national best offer is greater than the Threshold Setting, the System
will reject \22\ the order. This provision is consistent with the
operation of the current rule, however under the Exchange's proposal
the Threshold Setting used for evaluation purposes may now be either
the Exchange default setting of $0.10 or the Member's Threshold
Setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The current rule provides that the Exchange will cancel the
order however the Exchange is proposing to provide additional
clarity to distinguish order handling in the rule text in this
proposal. An order that is rejected has not been accepted by the
System, whereas an order that is cancelled has been accepted by the
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new subparagraph (vi) to paragraph
(a)(1) of Rule 519 to provide that, if the Exchange reevaluates a
market order to sell an option when the resulting national best bid is
zero and both (A) the trade price or route price, and (B) the national
best offer, are greater than the Threshold Setting, the System will
reject the order or cancel any unexecuted balance of the order. The
Exchange uses the route price or trade price, in conjunction with the
national best offer to determine the proper disposition of a market
order to sell when the national best bid becomes zero.
    Proposed paragraphs (iii) and (vi) both address the reevaluation
process. A market order to sell may be partially executed on the
Exchange and reevaluated by the Exchange, and may also be routed to an
away Exchange and then reevaluated by the Exchange. The first scenario
occurs when the Exchange receives a market order to sell and the
Exchange is not zero bid, but away exchanges are. In this scenario, the
Exchange will execute the order on the Exchange and the execution price
will be the ``trade price.'' In the event that there is still interest
remaining of the order, and the national best bid is zero, the Exchange
will reevaluate the order using the trade price. If the trade price or
the national best offer price is less than or equal to the Threshold
Setting, the System will convert the market order to sell, to a limit
order to sell, with a limit price of one minimum increment.\23\ If the
trade price and the national best offer price are greater than the
Threshold Setting, the System will cancel any unexecuted balance of the
order.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 519(a)(1)(iii).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 519(a)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second scenario occurs when the Exchange receives a market
order to sell and the Exchange is zero bid but away exchanges are not.
The Exchange will route the order to the away exchange, if the order is
returned to the Exchange and the national best bid becomes zero, the
Exchange will reevaluate the order using the route price. If the route
price or national best offer is less than or equal to the Threshold
Setting, the System will convert the market order to sell, to a limit
order to sell, with a limit price of one minimum trading increment.\25\
If the route price and the national best offer are greater than the
Threshold Setting, the System will reject the order or cancel any
unexecuted balance of the order.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Rule 519(a)(1)(iii).
    \26\ See proposed Rule 519(a)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraph (vi) the Exchange believes considering both
the route price or trade price, and the national best offer, provides a
clear indication of the current market conditions when either the route
price or trade price and the national best offer is greater than the
Threshold Setting and allows the Exchange to make the proper
determination regarding the disposition of the order.
    The proposed rule text provides additional detail regarding the
System's behavior when the Exchange reevaluates a market order to sell
and the national best bid has become zero. Example 1 below describes
the System processing when the national best offer is below the
Threshold Setting, and Example 2 describes the System processing when
the national best offer is above the Threshold Setting.
Example 1
MPV: $0.05
Exchange default Threshold Setting: $0.10
Member selected Threshold Setting: $0.25

EBBO \27\ (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The term ``EBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABBO \28\ (10) 0.10 x 0.15 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The term ``ABBO'' or ``Away Best Bid or Offer'' means the
best bid(s) or offer(s) disseminated by other Eligible Exchanges
(defined in Rule 1400(g)) and calculated by the Exchange based on
market information received by the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange
Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBBO \29\ (10) 0.10 x 0.15 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.

    Market order to sell 20 contracts is received by the Exchange.
    The Exchange routes the order to the away exchange by sending a
limit order to sell 10 contracts at $0.10 (the route price).
    The order is executed on the away exchange, sell 10 at $0.10, and
the away market becomes zero bid.

EBBO: (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)

    Using the Member selected Threshold Setting of $0.25 to reevaluate
the order, the remainder of the order (10 contracts) would be converted
to a limit order to sell with a time in force of day, and placed on the
Exchange as the national best offer ($0.15) (and the route price of
$0.10) is less than or equal to the Member selected Threshold Setting
of $0.25. The 10 contracts would then be displayed on the Exchange at
an offer price of one minimum trading increment or $0.05.

EBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.05 (10)
ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.15 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.05 (10)

    If the Exchange default Threshold Setting ($0.10) was used for the
reevaluation, the remainder of the order (10 contracts) would be
converted to a limit order to sell with a time in force of day, and
placed on the Exchange, as the route price of $0.10 is equal to the
Exchange Threshold Setting of $0.10. The 10 contracts would then be
displayed on the Exchange at an offer price of one minimum trading
increment or $0.05.
Example 2
MPV: $0.05
Exchange default Threshold Setting: $0.10
Member selected Threshold Setting: $0.25

EBBO (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)
ABBO (10) 0.40 x 0.50 (10)
NBBO (10) 0.40 x 0.50 (10)

    Market order to sell 20 contracts is received by the Exchange. The
Exchange is zero bid for that series and routes the order to the away
exchange by sending a limit order to sell 10 at $0.40 (the route
price).
    The order is executed on the away exchange, sell 10 at $0.40, and
the away market becomes zero bid.

EBBO: (0) 0.00 x 5.00 (10)

ABBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.50 (10)
NBBO: (0) 0.00 x 0.50 (10)

    Using the Member selected Threshold Setting of $0.25 to reevaluate
the order, the remainder of the order (10 contracts) would be cancelled
as both (i) the route price ($0.40) and (ii) the national best offer
($0.50) are greater than the Threshold Setting ($0.25).
Implementation Date
    The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change in Q4 of
2022 and will announce the implementation date to its Members via
Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \30\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \31\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
protects investors and the public interest by allowing Members to
establish the Threshold Setting for the evaluation of market orders to
sell when the national best bid is zero. The Exchange believes that
allowing Members to determine the Threshold Setting provides greater
flexibility and allows the Member to tailor the Threshold Setting to
the business and risk tolerances of the Member. Providing Members with
the flexibility to determine their own Threshold Setting may increase
the opportunity for investors to receive an execution, to the benefit
of investors; or, if an order that is evaluated under the proposed
evaluation and reevaluation criteria in the proposal is rejected,
investors are protected from receiving an execution at a potentially
unwanted price.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to allow Members the flexibility
to establish their own pre-set value to be used for evaluation purposes
of market orders to sell when the national best bid is zero allows
Members to align their risk protections with their risk tolerance.
Members have the discretion to set their pre-set value to whatever
value best aligns to their risk profile, which may be as low as
$0.00.\32\ The Exchange provides Members the ability to tailor risk
protection functionality to the risk profile of the Member, and has
allowed Members to customize their risk protection settings for other
risk protections. Specifically, the Exchange allows Members to set the
maximum size of an order for the purposes of the MIAX Emerald Order
Monitor Order Size Protection,\33\ and if the maximum size of an order
is not designated by the Member, the Exchange provides an Exchange
defined default value.\34\ Additionally, the Exchange provides Members
the option to set a price protection limit on a per order basis,\35\
and orders received without a price protection limit specified receive
the Exchange defined default value.\36\ The current proposal to allow
Members to determine a pre-set value to be used as the Threshold
Setting continues the Exchange's approach of allowing a Member to
customize its risk protections to better align to the risk tolerance of
the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange notes that the Nasdaq Phlx Zero-Bid Option
Series rule, does not have a threshold evaluation and provides that,
``[i]n the case where the bid price for any options series is $0.00,
a Market Order accepted into the System to sell that series shall be
considered a Limit Order to sell at a price equal to the minimum
trading increment as defined in [Nasdaq Phlx] Options 3, Section 3.
Orders will be placed on the Limit Order book in the order in which
they were received by the System. With respect to Market Orders to
sell which are submitted prior to the Opening Process and persist
after the Opening Process, those orders are posted at a price equal
to the minimum trading increment as defined in Options 3, Section
3.'' See Nasdaq Phlx Options 3, Section 10(b).
    \33\ See Exchange Rule 519(b).
    \34\ See MIAX Emerald Regulatory Circular 2019-20, Mandatory
Usage of MIAX Order Monitor Protections (February 28, 2019)
available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2019_20.pdf.
    \35\ See Exchange Rule 515(c)(1).
    \36\ See MIAX Emerald Regulatory Circular 2019-17, MIAX Emerald
Price Protection Process (February 28, 2019) available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_Emerald_RC_2019_17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to reorganize the current rule
text to describe each scenario separately (i.e., evaluation of a market
order to sell when the national best bid is zero and the national best
offer is less than or equal to the Threshold Setting (proposed
paragraph (ii)); reevaluation of a market order to sell when the
national best bid becomes zero and either the trade price, route price,
or national best offer is less than or equal to the Threshold Setting
(proposed paragraph (iii)); initial evaluation of a market order to
sell when the national best bid is zero and the national best offer is
greater than the Threshold Setting (proposed paragraph (v)); and
reevaluation of a market order to sell when the national best bid
becomes zero and the national best offer is greater than the Threshold
Setting (proposed paragraph (vi))) better organizes the rule text. The
Exchange believes discussing each scenario separately and describing
the evaluations that are performed by the System to determine the
proper disposition of the order provides transparency and clarity in
the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
protects investors and the public interest by providing additional
detail regarding the Exchange's process for reevaluating market orders
to sell when the national best bid becomes zero. The Exchange believes
it is in the interest of investors and the public to accurately
describe the behavior of the Exchange's System in its rules as this
information may be used by investors to make decisions concerning the
submission of their orders. Transparency and clarity are consistent
with the Act because it 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 accurately
describing how market orders to sell in zero bid series are handled on
the Exchange. It is in the public interest for rules to be accurate and
concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and
equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general, protects investors and the public interest by re-organizing
the rule text for ease of reference. The Exchange believes that
Exchange rules should be clear and transparent so as to avoid the
potential for confusion.

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.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on

intra-market competition as all Members that submit market orders to
the Exchange will be treated equally and the Rules of the Exchange
apply equally to all Exchange Members. Additionally, the proposal
allows each Member to determine the pre-set value to be used as the
Threshold Setting and allows each Member to align their Threshold
Setting to their risk tolerance. The Exchange's proposal does not
impose a burden on intra-market competition as all Members have the
flexibility to determine their own Threshold Setting and the
application of the rule is applied uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal is
not a competitive filing but one that provides Members the flexibility
to determine their own Threshold Setting and also provides additional
detail regarding the Exchange's process for reevaluating market orders
to sell when the national bid becomes zero. Other options exchanges
have an equal opportunity to modify their systems to offer similar
functionality.
    Additionally, the non-substantive changes proposed by the Exchange
will have no impact on competition as they provide additional clarity
and detail in the Exchange's rules and are not changes made for any
competitive purpose.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \37\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \38\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-EMERALD-2022-28 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-EMERALD-2022-28. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. 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-EMERALD-2022-28 and should be submitted
on or before October 13, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20502 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P