[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10933-10940]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80008; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-09]

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

February 10, 2017.
    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 February 1, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``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 SPY,'' and Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options
Fees'' \3\ to amend various transaction fees and rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Multiply Listed Options includes options overlying equities,
ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.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 amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Section I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding
and Removing Liquidity in SPY,'' to (i) amend the Simple Order Rebate
for Adding Liquidity which is paid to Specialists \4\ and Market
Makers; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)).
    \5\ The term ``Market Maker'' describes fees and rebates
applicable to Registered Options Traders (``ROT''), Streaming Quote
Traders (``SQT'') and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQT''). A
ROT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the
Exchange located on the trading floor who has received permission
from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. A ROT
includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as on and off-floor ROTS. An SQT is
defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received
permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.
An RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that
is a member affiliated with an RSQTO with no physical trading floor
presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned. A Remote Streaming Quote Trader Organization
or ``RSQTO,'' which may also be referred to as a Remote Market
Making Organization (``RMO''), is a member organization in good
standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in Rule
507(a).

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

    (ii) increase the Specialist, Market Maker, Firm,\6\ Broker-Dealer
\7\ and Professional \8\ Simple Order Fees for Removing Liquidity; and
(iii) increase the Specialist and Market Maker Complex Order \9\ Fees
for Removing Liquidity. The amendments will be described in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \8\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).
    \9\ A Complex Order is an order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced as a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
at Section II, entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees,'' to: (i)
Remove the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule and thereby
increase the Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex
Orders in non-Penny Pilot Options; (ii) amend the lower transaction fee
for Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex Orders in
Penny Pilot Options; and (iii) amend the transaction fee assessed to
Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Complex Orders in non-
Penny Pilot Options if they are under Common Ownership with another
member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated
Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule.\10\ The amendments will be described in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section B of the Pricing Schedule contains Customer Rebate
Tiers which are calculated by totaling Customer volume in Multiply
Listed Options (including SPY) that are electronically-delivered and
executed, except volume associated with electronic QCC Orders, as
defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o). Rebates are paid on Customer
Rebate Tiers according to certain categories. Members and member
organizations under Common Ownership may aggregate their Customer
volume for purposes of calculating the Customer Rebate Tiers and
receiving rebates. Affiliated Entities may aggregate their Customer
volume for purposes of calculating the Customer Rebate Tiers and
receiving rebates. See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Section I: Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in SPY
    Section I of the Pricing Schedule contains fees and rebates
applicable to options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary
Receipts/SPDRs (``SPY'').\11\ The Exchange specifies which fees and
rebates apply to Simple Orders and Complex Orders within this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund
(``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple Order
    Today, Simple Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity are paid as noted
below to Specialists and Market Makers adding the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rebate for
               Tiers                   Monthly volume         adding
                                                             liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  1 to 2,499..........           $0.15
2.................................  2,500 to 4,999......            0.20
3.................................  5,000 to 19,999.....            0.25
4.................................  20,000 to 34,999....            0.30
5.................................  35,000 to 49,999....            0.32
6.................................  greater than 49,999.            0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other market participants do not receive a SPY Simple Order
Rebate for Adding Liquidity. The Exchange proposes to amend the Simple
Order Rebates for Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and
Market Makers by reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers.
The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 2 to reduce the Rebate for Adding
Liquidity from $0.20 to $0.18 per contract. The Exchange proposes to
amend Tier 3 to reduce the Rebate for Adding Liquidity from $0.25 to
$0.21 per contract. The monthly volume per day for Tiers 2 and 3 are
not being amended. With respect to Tier 4, the Exchange proposes to
amend the monthly volume per day from 20,000 to 34,999 contracts to
20,000 to 49,999 contracts. The Exchange proposes to increase the Tier
4 rebate from $0.30 to $0.31 per contract. The Exchange proposes to
eliminate current Tier 5. The Exchange proposes to rename Tier 6 to be
new Tier 5. No other amendments are proposed to new renamed Tier 5.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Tier 1 is not being amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename the column entitled ``Monthly
Volume'' as ``Average Daily Volume (``ADV'').'' The Exchange believes
that this title more accurately describes the manner in which the
rebate is calculated, which is adding the requisite amount of
electronically executed Specialist and Market Maker Simple Order
contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in Part A of Section I of
the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does not impact the manner
in which the Exchange calculates these rebates today.
    The Exchange's proposal for the Simple Order Rebates for Adding
Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers would be as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Rebate for
               Tiers                    Average daily         adding
                                      volume  (``ADV'')      liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  1 to 2,499..........           $0.15
2.................................  2,500 to 4,999......            0.18
3.................................  5,000 to 19,999.....            0.21
4.................................  20,000 to 49,999....            0.31
5.................................  greater than 49,999.            0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange believes that the proposed five tier rebate structure will
incentivize market participants to add a greater amount of Specialist
and Market Maker liquidity in SPY on the Exchange to obtain higher
rebates.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Simple Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity in SPY for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker
Dealers and Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48
per contract. The Customer \13\ Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity
is not being amended and will remain at $0.45 per contract. Despite the
increased fee, the Exchange believes that its fees for Simple Orders in
SPY remain competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for
the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Order
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Complex Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity in SPY for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the
fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract. The Exchange would not increase
the fees for Firms, Broker-Dealers or Professionals; those fees will
remain at $0.50 per contract. Today, Customers are not assessed a
Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity. Despite the increased fee,
the Exchange believes that its fees for Complex Orders in SPY remain
competitive.

Proposed Amendments to Section II: Multiple Listed Options Fees
Penny Pilot Options
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and
Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders. Today, the Exchange assesses Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms an electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders of $0.35 per contract. The Exchange proposes to increase the
Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges for Complex Orders to $0.40 per contract. Despite
the increase to this fee, the Exchange believes the Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges for electronic Complex Order transactions remain
competitive. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms will continue to
be offered a discounted rate as compared to Simple Orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange would continue to assess an electronic Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charges to Professionals, Broker-Dealers
and Firms of $0.48 per contract for Simple Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Penny Pilot Options
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer and
Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders. Today, the Exchange assesses Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms an electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for
Complex Orders of $0.35 per contract. The Exchange is proposing to
remove the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing Schedule from the
non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms. With this proposal, Professional, Broker-Dealer and
Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders would be increased to $0.75 per contract because the reduced
rate would no longer apply. Members may still lower this rate if they
qualified for the reduced rebate offered in note 3 in the Pricing
Schedule, which note is also being amended with this proposal as noted
below. As proposed, the Options Transaction Charge for Simple and
Complex Order electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges
would be the same fee of $0.75 per contract fee.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges by
amending note 3 in the Pricing Schedule. Today, note 3 provides that
any member or member organization under Common Ownership with another
member or member organization or an Appointed OFP of an Affiliated
Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule \15\ will be assessed a Professional, Broker-
Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of
$0.60 per contract. The Exchange proposes to amend the fee to assess
$0.65 per contract. The qualifications for the reduced rate remain the
same. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms that do not qualify for
Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule would
continue to pay an electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction
Charge of $0.75 per contract. While the Exchange is amending the fee so
that the reduction is not as great as today, the Exchange will continue
to offer a reduced rate to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms that
qualify by sending the requisite order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 10 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is adding a period at end of the sentence in
footnote 3 to correct a typographical error.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\19\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\20\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \20\ See NetCoalition, at 534--535.
    \21\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \22\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Section I: Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in SPY
Simple Order
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for
Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by
reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the
Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to
$0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to
49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract,
eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 is reasonable
because the Exchange believes that the proposed five tier rebate
structure will incentivize market participants to add a greater amount
of Specialist and Market Maker liquidity in SPY on the Exchange to
obtain higher rebates. A Specialist or Market Maker would continue to
receive a rebate with this proposal provided they execute one
electronic Simple Order SPY contract.
    In some cases, the rebate will be lower. When 2,500 to 4,999
electronic Simple Order SPY contracts per day are added, the SPY Simple
Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers
will be $0.18 per contract as compared to $0.20 per

contract (today's rebate). With this proposal, the rebate would be
lower for members currently submitting 5,000 to 19,999 SPY contracts
per day, the rebate would be $0.21 per contract as compared to $.25 per
contract. Members currently submitting between 20,000 and 34,999 SPY
contracts would receive a $0.31 per contract as compared to $0.30 per
contract rebate with this proposal, an increased rebate of $0.01 per
contract. Finally, with this proposal, market participants currently
submitting between 35,000 and 49,999 SPY contracts per day would
receive a lower rebate of $0.31 per contract as compared to $0.32 per
contract. Despite this decrease, the Exchange believes that
participants will continue to be incentivized to add SPY order flow to
the Exchange to receive the rebate.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for
Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by
reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the
Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to
$0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to
49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract,
eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Specialists and Market Makers have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants.\23\ 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 differentiation as between
Specialists and Market Makers and all other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and
trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to rename the column entitled ``Monthly
Volume'' as ``Average Daily Volume (``ADV'')'' is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the title more accurately
describes the manner in which the rebate is calculated, which is adding
the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market
Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in
Part A of Section I of the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does
not impact the manner in which the Exchange calculates these rebates
today.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and
Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract
is reasonable because despite the increased fee, the Exchange believes
that its fees for Simple Orders in SPY remain competitive. The Customer
Simple Order Fee for Removing Liquidity is not being amended and will
remain at $0.45 per contract. Also, the increase in the Simple Order
Fees for Removing Liquidity will continue to support the rebate
structure proposed herein, which as stated above, attracts Specialists
and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of Specialists and
Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and
Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all participants
would continue to be assessed a similar fee, except for Customers. The
Exchange believes that assessing Customers a lower fee is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Complex Order
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the
fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract is reasonable because despite the
increased fee, the Exchange believes that its fees for Complex Orders
in SPY remain competitive. Also, Specialists and Market Makers continue
to be assessed a lower fee as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers or
Professionals; who are assessed $0.50 per contract.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the
fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\24\ 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 differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Customers continue to be assessed no Complex Order
Fee for Removing Liquidity because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Section II: Multiple Listed Options Fees
Penny Pilot Options
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract is reasonable
because despite the increase to this fee, the Exchange believes the
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for electronic Complex Order
transactions remain competitive. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms and will continue to be offered a discounted rate as compared to
Simple Orders which will continue to be assessed $0.48 per contract.

    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms would be uniformly assessed $0.40 per contract. Specialists and
Market Makers would continue to be assessed a lower electronic Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.22 per contract. Unlike other
market participants, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to
the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to
other market participants.\25\ 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 differentiation as between Specialists
and Market Makers and all other market participants recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. Customers continue to be assessed
no Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge because Customer orders bring
valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders
in Penny Pilot Options as compared to non-Penny Pilot Options because
the Exchange seeks to incentivize Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms to execute Complex Penny Pilot Options orders. Also, lowering the
electronic Options Transaction Charges for Complex Orders, as compared
to Simple Orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange desires to continue to incentivize
these market participants to transact Complex Orders on the Exchange.
The fees will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
Non-Penny Pilot
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for
Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing
Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract is reasonable
because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms transacting electronic
non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges would be uniformly assessed
a fee of $0.75 per contract for Simple and Complex Orders. Members may
still lower this rate if they qualified for the reduced rebate offered
in note 3 in the Pricing Schedule, which note is also being amended
with this proposal. Despite the inapplicability of note 2, the Exchange
believes the non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for electronic
Complex Order transactions remain competitive.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for
Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing
Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
Firms transacting electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction
Charges would be uniformly assessed a fee of $0.75 per contract for
Simple and Complex Orders. Specialists and Market Makers would continue
to be assessed a lower electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction
Charge of $0.25 per contract. Unlike other market participants,
Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\26\ 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 differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Customers continue to be assessed no non-Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charge because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to
increase the amount a member or member organization under Common
Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed
OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4
or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase
the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charge of from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract is
reasonable because Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms may continue
to qualify for a lower rate. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms
that do not qualify for Customer Rebate Tiers 4 or 5 in Section B of
the Pricing Schedule would continue to pay an electronic non-Penny
Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.75 per contract. While amendment
reduces the savings, the Exchange will continue to offer Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms that qualify by sending the requisite order
flow to the Exchange a lower transaction fee. In addition, attracting
Customer order flow benefits all market participants with increased
order flow with which to interact.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to
increase the amount a member or member organization under Common
Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed
OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4
or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase
the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charge of [sic] from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these market
participants are subject to the highest transaction fees of $0.75 per
contract.
    The Exchange's proposal to correct the typographical error in
footnote 3 is

reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
correct [sic] a grammatical error.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In
sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange believes that
its proposed rebates and fees continue to remain competitive in SPY and
Multiply Listed Options. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
Proposed Amendments to Section I: Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in SPY
Simple Order
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Rebates for
Adding Liquidity which are paid to Specialists and Market Makers by
reducing the number of tiers from 6 tiers to 5 tiers and reducing the
Tier 2 rebate to $0.18 per contract, reducing the Tier 3 rebate to
$0.21 per contract, amending the Tier 4 monthly volume to 20,000 to
49,999 contracts per day and the rebate to $0.31 per contract,
eliminating Tier 5 and renaming Tier 6 to new Tier 5 does not impose an
undue burden on intra-market competition because Specialists and Market
Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements,
which normally do not apply to other market participants.\27\ 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 differentiation as
between Specialists and Market Makers and all other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and
trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to rename the column entitled ``Monthly
Volume'' as ``Average Daily Volume (``ADV'')'' does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the title more accurately
describes the manner in which the rebate is calculated, which is adding
the requisite amount of electronically executed Specialist and Market
Maker Simple Order contracts per day in a month in SPY, as noted in
Part A of Section I of the Pricing Schedule. This proposed change does
not impact the manner in which the Exchange calculates these rebates
today.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the Simple Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity for Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Broker Dealers and
Professionals by increasing the fees from $0.47 to $0.48 per contract
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because all
participants would continue to be assessed a similar fee, except for
Customers. The Exchange believes that assessing Customers a lower fee
does not impose a burden on intra-market competition because Customer
orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits
other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these
market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may
cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
Complex Order
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Complex Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity for Specialists and Market Makers by increasing the
fees from $0.40 to $0.43 per contract does not impose an undue burden
on intra-market competition. Unlike other market participants,
Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\28\ 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 differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Customers continue to be assessed no Complex Order
Fee for Removing Liquidity because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Section II: Multiple Listed Options Fees
Penny Pilot Options
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for Complex
Orders from $0.35 per contract to $0.40 per contract does not impose an
undue burden on intra-market competition because Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms would be uniformly assessed

$0.40 per contract. Specialists and Market Makers would continue to be
assessed a lower electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of
$0.22 per contract. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\29\ 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 differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants. Customers continue to be assessed no Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charge because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Penny Pilot Options
    The Exchange's proposal to amend its Professional, Broker-Dealer
and Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges for
Complex Orders by removing the applicability of note 2 in the Pricing
Schedule and increasing the fee to $0.75 per contract does not impose
an undue burden on intra-market competition because Professionals,
Broker-Dealers and Firms transacting electronic non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charges would be uniformly assessed a fee of $0.75 per
contract. Specialists and Market Makers would continue to be assessed a
lower electronic non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge of $0.25
per contract. Unlike other market participants, Specialists and Market
Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements,
which normally do not apply to other market participants.\30\ 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 differentiation as
between Specialists and Market Makers and all other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the liquidity and
trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Customers continue to be assessed no non-Penny Pilot Options
Transaction Charge because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to
the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it does not impose an undue burden on
intra-market competition to continue to offer Professionals, Broker-
Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders
in non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to Penny Pilot Options because
the Options Transaction Charges for non-Penny Pilot Options are higher.
Also, only lowering the electronic Options Transaction Charges for
Complex Orders, as compared to Simple Orders does not impose an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange desires to
continue to incentivize these market participants to transact Complex
Orders on the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend note 3 in the Pricing Schedule to
increase the amount a member or member organization under Common
Ownership with another member or member organization or an Appointed
OFP of an Affiliated Entity that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers 4
or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed and increase
the Professional, Broker-Dealer or Firm electronic non-Penny Pilot
Options Transaction Charge of from $0.60 to $0.65 per contract does not
impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because these market
participants are subject to the highest transaction fees of $0.75 per
contract.
    The Exchange's proposal to correct the typographical error in
footnote 3 does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition
because it correct [sic] a grammatical error.

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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-09. 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-2017-09, and should be submitted on or before March 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03099 Filed 2-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4622-4623]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01635]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0517; FRL-9941-77-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or
Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBBB)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Emission Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units
Constructed on or Before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1901.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0424) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through January 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 26,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
2012-2012-0517, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: These emission guidelines apply to small municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) constructed on or before August 30, 1999, that
combust greater than 35 tons per day (tpd) but less than 250 tpd of
municipal solid waste. The emission guidelines regulate organics
(dioxin/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and particulate
matter), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides). The emission guidelines require initial reports,
semiannual reports, and annual reports. Owners or operators also are
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. Owners or operators subject to these regulations are
required to maintain records of measurements and reports for at least
five years.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Small municipal waste combustion
units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBBB).
    Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 102,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,200,000 (per year), includes $1,040,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent

burden from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in respondent
labor hour is caused by a change in assumption; in this ICR, we assume
all existing sources will take some time each year to re-familiarize
themselves with the rule requirements. There is also a small increase
in the total O&M cost due to rounding of all calculated values to three
significant digits.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-01635 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23042-23043]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0016]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2018, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 9573)
inviting comments on two information collections identified by OMB
control numbers 2137-0594 and 2137-0622 that expire on May 31, 2018.
PHMSA is requesting an extension with no change for these information
collections.
    During the public comment period, PHMSA received no comments in
response to the information collections. PHMSA received fifteen
comments that did not pertain to the information collection requests.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to provide the public with an
additional 30 days to comment on the renewal of the information
collections referenced above and to announce that the information
collection requests will be submitted to OMB for approval.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
June 18, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by email at [email protected], by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2018-0016 by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-395-5806.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Records Management Center, Room 10102 NEOB, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation\PHMSA.
     Email: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
at the following email address: [email protected].
    Requests for a copy of the information collection should be
directed to Angela Dow by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at 202-366-
4566, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, PHP-30, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

Summary of Comments Received

    During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received fifteen (15)
comments from anonymous submitters that emphasized the general
importance of environmental safety in the oil and gas industry.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies two
information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB for
renewal. The following information is provided for each information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control
number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected
public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-
year term of approval for each information collection activity. PHMSA
requests comments on the following information collections:
    1. Title: Customer-Owned Service Lines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0594.
    Current Expiration Date: 5/31/2018.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: This information collection request requires operators of
gas service

lines who do not maintain their customers' buried piping between
service lines and building walls or gas utilization equipment to send
written notices to their customers prescribing the proper maintenance
of these gas lines and of the potential hazards of not properly
maintaining these gas lines. Operators also must maintain records that
include a copy of the notice currently in use and evidence that notices
were sent to customers within the previous three years. Examples of
sufficient notification include a prepared notification with the
customer's bill. The purpose of the collection is to provide PHMSA with
adequate information about how customer-owned service lines are being
maintained to prevent the potential hazards associated with not
maintaining the lines.
    Affected Public: State and local governments.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Estimated Number of Responses: 550,000.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 9,167.
    Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.
    2. Title: Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0622.
    Current Expiration Date: 5/31/2018.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: The Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations require each
operator to develop and implement a written continuing public education
program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum
Institute's Recommended Practice (RP) 1162. Upon request, operators
must submit their completed programs to PHMSA or, in the case of an
intrastate pipeline facility operator, the appropriate state agency.
The operator's program documentation and evaluation results must also
be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies (49
CFR 192.616 and 195.440). The purpose of the collection is to establish
communications and provide information necessary to enhance public
understanding of how pipelines function and the public's role in
promoting pipeline safety. The timeframe for developing programs is 23
hours annually per operator.
    Affected Public: Operators of Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 22,500.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 517,480 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Annual.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections of
information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 11, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
John A. Gale,
Director, Standards and Rulemaking Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-10538 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P