SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 1 ABSTRACT  This Information Collection Request ( ICR) deals with reports required by 40 CFR 51.321, 51.322, and 51.323. The respondents ( States) are required to annually update information on stationary sources emitting at least threshold amounts of pollutants regulated by National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) uses the annual emission reports to update the national data base of emissions from stationary sources which it has maintained since 1974. The data are used in developing emission standards, applying dispersion models, and in preparing national trend assessments and other special analyses and reports.

1. NEED FOR CURRENT INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES While the Clean Air Act does not provide a specific authorization for a national emissions data base, the Act provides the EPA ample legislative authority for acquiring such data. Emission data are of vital importance to the EPA for fulfilling a host of monitoring, standard setting, rulemaking, reviewing, and reporting duties. Section 110 and 301( a) of the Clean Air Act provide a primary authority for a national emissions data base. Section 110 requires each State to prepare a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the primary standard for each pollutant for which air quality criteria have been issued. This plan must include provisions for periodic reports identifying sources and listing amounts of emissions. Section 301( a) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate necessary regulations.

Congressional support for collecting and reporting emissions data is demonstrated in three sections of the Clean Air Act. Section 110( 2)( F) requires that each State provide for periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions of criteria pollutants from stationary sources. Section 172( b) requires that each State plan include an emissions inventory and that it be revised and resubmitted as frequently as necessary. Furthermore, Section 114( 1) gives authority to the EPA Administrator to require sources to establish and maintain records and to sample emissions, and for the Administrator to have access to such records.

In addition to the activities authorized in these Sections, national emission data bases are critical to the development of New Source Performance Standards ( Section 111), Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards ( Section 112), in refining and applying the air quality models described in Section 320, and in preparing national trends assessments and reports.

2. DESCRIPTION OF USES AND USERS OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTED SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 2 Emissions data and related information on major stationary sources are routinely used by the OAQPS and the EPA Regional Offices in carrying out a variety of activities. These activities support regulatory functions as well as functions that are more programmatic in nature such as trends analyses. Such projects include:

! Evaluation of proposed control strategies for States and larger areas, including applications of the EPA's Regional Oxidant Model ( ROM);

! Development of national control strategies and preparation of Regulatory Impact Analyses;

! Preparation and publication of national summaries of emissions including trend analyses;

! As a data base to assist in the identification of important source categories for future regulation;

! Preparation of the stationary source portion of a report to Congress on sulfur dioxide ( SO 2) emissions. This report is required by Section 406 of the Clean Air Act and is due on a five year cycle that began on January 1, 1995. The report must contain an inventory of national annual SO 2 emissions from industrial sources ( as defined in Title IV of the Clean Air Act); and ! Assistance to States in performing case by case maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) determinations.

EPA's Office of Research and Development uses stationary source data in determining priorities for control technology research and as a key data component in application of the Regional Atmospheric Deposition Model. The EPA's Regional Offices use emissions and other source parameters to support source inspections and in the analyses of the impact of new or modified sources within an area. Both the OAQPS and the Regional Offices respond to numerous requests for reports on stationary sources and typically this is done under the Freedom of Information Act. Most requests come from contractors and consultants involved in special studies; a smaller number come from universities and others involved in research.

3. DESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION COLLECTION METHODOLOGY SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 3 With the AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS), the States have two options for making their updates:

! On line Update ( direct entry to AFS)

! Batch Submittal of AFS batch transactions Currently, nineteen States are considered to be direct AFS emission users and either use AFS on line data entry procedures or submit AFS batch transactions. For these agencies, AFS serves as the State's sole ( or at least primary) emission data system and the effort required to make AFS updates is not really separable from efforts they would make to maintain emission files for State regulatory programs. For the " non direct" States, submissions are typically done by file transfer ( i. e., data sets are uploaded over the EPA network or the Internet) in the form of AFS batch transaction.

EPA is participating in a joint effort with State and local air pollution control agencies known as the Emission Inventory Improvement Program ( EIIP) to develop a common format for exchanging data from one agency to another ( example: State to State, State to EPA). The need for such a format has increased with the increase in regional air quality modeling efforts that require data sharing by multiple States. When this common format is completed, it will be supported by EPA as an additional mechanism for submitting emissions data to EPA.

4. NONDUPLICATION AND CONSULTATIONS OF DATA REPORTING 4( a) AFS has the capability to store both emissions and compliance data for facilities. When AFS began operation in 1990, the initial load of data came from separate compliance and emission data systems. The AFS system included capabilities to merge the separate data together and create one integrated facility. In addition, new data can be created in an integrated fashion.

Since the initial startup of AFS, users have been working at integrating their data in the system. For the most part, these efforts have been completed. As a result of having merged data, any reported data common to both emissions and compliance reporting need only be reported once under the integrated facility.

No other EPA data systems are built on a universe of significant emitters of all NAAQS pollutants. A system being operated by the EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs contains emissions information for the Acid Rain Program, however, its focus is on SO 2 and oxides of nitrogen ( NO x) sources being regulated under Title IV. The OAQPS has identified this system as one for possible future integration. Several collections maintained by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency do include information on air emissions, however, no one database is SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 4 structured on the same comprehensive universe as that described in this ICR. As the EPA's AFS files become integrated, the use of emission data from another Federal Department will become a less viable option, since such use would require the EPA to undertake substantial efforts to reconcile those acquired data with data in AFS.

4( b) CONSULTATIONS EPA has discussed this information with the following state contacts:

! David Asseilmeier  Illinois  Bureau of Air Compliance & System Management Phone: ( 217) 782 5811 ! Sally Otterson  Washington  Department of Ecology Phone: ( 360) 407 6806 ! John Anderson  Washington  Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ( PSAPCA) Phone: ( 206) 689 4051 ! Ralph Johnston  Oregon  Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority ( LRAPA) Phone: ( 541) 726 2514 5. MINIMIZATION OF BURDEN FOR SMALL ENTITIES Most State control agencies are not considered to be small entities. To support States with fewer sophisticated processing capabilities, the EPA has developed mainframe and PC software to facilitate State efforts in storing, maintaining and reporting source data. A number of Territories and smaller States have adopted these and use them to make their submissions. By providing a number of means whereby the respondents can make their submissions, respondents are able to select those which minimize their efforts and costs and still use some type of electronic technology. The high level of user support provided to direct users of AFS has been especially attractive to agencies in small States having only modest automated data processing ( ADP) capabilities and a few agencies in larger states.

6. CONSEQUENCES OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 5 If this information collection were not carried out annually, the EPA's Air Program would be unable to update the national data base on stationary sources which it has maintained since 1974. The existing files would be useful for several years for a limited number of functions such as national assessments of the emissions contributed by specified source categories and efforts to characterize the relative size of individual categories. For most of the uses described above, however, out of date data would be unsatisfactory.

7. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES None 8. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The first Federal Register, announcing the renewal of the ICR, was published on June 13, 2001. No comments were received.

9. PAYMENTS AND GIFTS TO RESPONDENTS No payments or gifts are given to respondents.

10. HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL DATA AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS As required by Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, estimates or measurements of emissions must be treated as non confidential. Under Agency procedures, several data items relating to the computation of emissions may be identified as sensitive by a State and are then treated as " Statesensitive by the EPA. The potentially State sensitive items include the following: process rate, boiler design capacity, emission estimation codes, percent space heat, annual operating rate and maximum operation rate/ Hr. Other than State sensitive data, this collection does not involve any sensitive questions.

11. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED 11( a) RESPONDENTS: All of the reports submitted under this ICR are submitted by State air pollution control agencies. As part of their program for attaining National and State air quality standards, all State agencies maintain records on the emissions and major physical parameters of all stationary sources emitting significant amounts of the pollutants regulated through these standards. The compilation of emission data on stationary sources is required by 40 CFR 51.117 ( for lead) and 51.114 ( for other pollutants) as a part of the inventory which each State Implementation Plan ( SIP) must contain. Since the SIP process continues to be somewhat SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 6 dynamic, the States have all opted to maintain emission files on a regular bases so as to facilitate future SIP revisions and to have the data in a form where it can be provided to the public, if requested.

11( b) INFORMATION COLLECTED: To meet the reporting requirements in 51.321 3, each State is to furnish annual updates to the EPA of emission related items which have changed since the last submission. Since most of the AFS data which the States are required to update ( area codes, addresses or other physical parameters) do not change often, the updating of more than 90 percent of all source records is minimal and typically involves only changes in emissions and closely related information ( fuel usage, process rates, seasonal thruput, etc.). The establishment of a new record for a stationary source requires a State to provide data for approximately 40 data elements on a one time basis. It should be noted that the AFS file structure allows the storage of numerous, other data elements to quantify parameters such as uncontrolled emissions, the flow rates and temperatures of stack gases, and data relating to any measurements of emissions that may exist for the source. State agencies satisfy the reporting requirements ( as cited above) by annually furnishing data and information on stationary sources emitting one or more of the following pollutants above a specified level: PM 10, SO 2, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen ( NO x), volatile organic compounds and lead.

As discussed above, the respondent burdens for this ICR are limited to activities involved with taking emissions and related parameters from an automated file, providing it to the EPA through one of the update processes noted above, and resolving any errors or anomalies identified through edits or other qualitative reviews. Thus, the activities are primarily data processing and typically do not involve the development of new data which does not already exist in the State's files. The activities itemized on Attachment 1 reflect these assumptions and quantify the hours associated with each annual submission. The estimated hours are for an " average" respondent.

11( c) DATA ITEMS INVOLVED IN ANNUAL REPORTING: There are required data elements for each record in AFS. They are listed below by record type. The full set of required data elements must be provided the first time a plant or record is added to the database. The first step in a typical annual update of emission data is incrementing year of inventory to the new year. This causes the previous years' data to be archived, as well as to remain on the current database with the new year of inventory. There are three options for copying emissions data when incrementing the year of inventory. ( 1) copy all emissions data, including SIP data, ( 2) copy only annual emissions data, omitting SIP data, and ( 3) copy only plant level data, excluding emissions data. Options 1 and 2 allow the State to only have to update those data elements which have changed from the previous year. Option 3 enables the State to replace all their emissions data for the previous year. SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 7 PLANT GENERAL  required data elements Plant  ID ( State FIPS code/ County FIPS code/ NEDS ID) Plant Name Address City code or city name Primary SIC Year of emission inventory Longitude/ Latitude STACK GENERAL  required data elements Stack number Stack height and diameter and/ or plume height Stack exit temperature Stack exit velocity Stack exit flow rate POINT GENERAL  required data elements Point number NOTE: To successfully add an emission point to AFS, at least one segment must be entered.

SEGMENT GENERAL  required data elements Point number Segment number Source Classification Code ( SCC)

SEGMENT POLLUTANT  required data elements Point number Segment number Pollutant code or Chemical Abstract Service ( CAS) number At least one complete set of emissions ( type, value, decimal, units, and method code ( if applicable)) SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 8 In addition to the above fields, a number of other fields are routinely updated annually for most sources. These include: process rate, seasonal percent annual thruput, maximum operation rate/ hr., fuel content ( heat, sulfur, ash), emission factor, boiler design capacity, maximum design rate, maximum nameplate capacity, primary control efficient, secondary control efficient, rule effectiveness, and time of operation ( hr/ day, day/ week, week/ year). Agencies should note that EPA is not prepared to protect confidential data. If any of these data elements are considered confidential, they should not be reported under this request. Part 51.323 specifies a number of conditions when the emissions data and information for a point source must be submitted in the annual report. These conditions are intended to minimize burden; for example, in cases where the emissions from a point source have not changed more than 5 percent from the most recently submitted emissions data, the State is only required to submit an updated year of record.

12. RESPONDENT HOUR BURDENS AND COSTS An estimated 54 States and Territorial air pollution control agencies will be required to record and report emission information on significant stationary sources on an annual basis. Reporting and record keeping of this information is estimated to involve an average of 212 hours per year by each State and Territorial air pollution control agency ( see attachment). The respondent burdens for this ICR are associated with preparing automated submissions of data on significant stationary sources from files which all States maintain as part of their own ongoing air pollution control programs. The burdens, therefore, are primarily for State personnel responsible for operating and maintaining automated data systems and to a lesser extent for mid level engineering staff familiar with the derivation of plant data in the State's files.

For this ICR, the respondent labor costs are assumed to be $ 25.73 per man hour ( times 11,448 burden hours) for a total of $ 294,554 per year.

13. RESPONDENT ANNUAL COST BURDEN 13( a) CAPITAL COSTS: During the 1980s, an EPA initiative established electronic communication with each State environmental agency. This included a computer terminal for any States needing one in order to communicate with the EPA's national data base systems. Costs for replacing the terminal with a personal computer, when replacement becomes necessary, is approximately $ 2,100 per agency. For this ICR renewal, it is assumed that 20 percent of the terminals will be replaced each year. Thus, the replacement rate would be: SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 9 54 agencies x 1 terminal/ agency x 20% replacement/ year = 11 terminals replaced/ year Cost of terminal replacement equals:

$ 2,100/ replacement PC x 11 replacements/ year = $ 23,100/ year Thus, total replacement costs are $ 23,100 per year.

13( b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS: These costs are attributed to the normal maintenance of the terminals and PC's used to submit the annual reports to AIRS. Maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $ 120 per agency. Thus, total maintenance costs for the respondents are:

$ 120 per agency x 54 agencies = $ 6,480 total estimated maintenance costs per year 14. AGENCY BURDENS AND COSTS EPA's costs which relate to this collection can be grouped into four areas:

! The cost of maintaining the AIRS Facility Subsystem for storing and retrieving point source emission data and for providing basic support services to users;

! The cost of processing data submitted by States including data editing, coordination of efforts to resolve errors and anomalies, and file updating;

! The cost of computer timesharing associated with software development and maintenance, file updating, and retrievals;

! The costs of preparing reports based on AFS emission data.

More detailed descriptions of these four areas follow.

14( a) AFS SUPPORT: For FY 1996, approximately five ( 5) full time equivalent positions ( FTEs) and $ 900,000 were used in developing and maintaining software and in providing support services to users. Assuming five positions at GS 12 step one and a mark up factor of 1.6, the current annual costs are estimated at approximately $ 350,000.

14( b) PROCESSING OF DATA: The costs of processing data submitted by the States include costs relating to data editing, coordination of efforts to resolve any errors or anomalies SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 10 identified through the edits or other reviews ( including efforts to merge or reconcile plant level codes), and updating of the files after the quality assurance and reconciliation assurance efforts have been completed. Within the EPA, the Regional Offices annually use about two FTEs to coordinate State efforts in making their submissions, perform software edits and other quality reviews, and if required, coordinate updates performed by the OAQPS. The OAQPS uses approximately one FTE to track and process annual data. Using the above assumptions, Agency processing costs are estimated at $ 200,000.

14( c) MAINFRAME TIMESHARING: The cost of operating and supporting the EPA's mainframe computers is centrally budgeted by the Agency's Enterprise Technology Service Division ( ETSD). Regular users ( USEPA, State and Territorial agencies) of systems are provided an annual budget based on such factors as prior and planned usage, any special processing projects anticipated, etc. We estimate that the total timeshares associated with AFS support and annual emissions reporting was approximately $ 500,000 in FY 1996.

14( d) REPORTS: Data from AFS is used by a variety of groups within the Agency. Most of these uses are functionally treated and budgeted as part of the projects they support and typically are just minor costs associated with the total analysis being conducted. Such usage typically is from data obtained through standard retrievals which most users obtain directly from AFS.

15. BURDEN STATEMENT Reporting of emission information on significant stationary sources is estimated to involve an average of 212 hours per year by State and Territorial air pollution control agencies. For all respondents, these activities include the resolution of errors and anomalies identified through EPA edits. Over a three year period all of the respondents will also be involved in reconciling emission and compliance data stored in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS). Approximately one third of the respondents will be involved in this reconciliation during any one year.

Reasons for Change in Burden: In total, an increased burden of $ 4,689 is estimated for this ICR. The increase is due to an adjustment in the estimated burden hours and costs based on current information provided by six State and Territorial agencies.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 11 maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer SUPPORTING STATEMENT ICR Renewal: Annual Updates of Emission Data to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) OMB # 2060 0088, EPA ICR # 916.11 12 Attachment 1

Description of ICR Person

Hours By Task for Annual Updates to AIRS Facility Subsystem Task Technical $

25.73 per hour (

A)

Respondent hour per year (

B)

Labor Cost per year (

C =

A

B)

Respondents per year (

D)

Total Cost per year (

E=

C

D) 1.

Planning/

Preparation

Read &

Interpret Instructions

Train Staff in Coding/ Submissions Techniques $

25.73 27 $

695 54 $

37,514 2.

Time to Create Information*

Assign EPA ID Codes to State Point Records $

25.73 45 $

1,158 54 $

62,532 3.

Time to Gather Information

Resolution of Errors & Anomalies

Reconciliation of Emission &

Compliance Records $

25.73 100 $

2,573 54 $

138,942 4.

Maintenance of Records

Maintain Log of Magnetic Tape or Other Media Submitted $

25.73 25 $

643 54 $

34,722 5.

Prepare Report

Submission to AFS $

25.73 15 $

386 54 $

20,844 TOTAL 212 $

5455 54 $

294,554 Per State Agency per year =

212 total hours *

54 Agencies =

11,448 hrs/

yr/

agency.

Burden assumes that all States must operate a system on point sources of emissions in order to operate a viable air pollution program.

Thus,

the burden related to obtaining updated data from sources,

entering it in State systems and performing quality control over the data in the State file is not included. for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: August 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 164)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49611-49613]
[DOCID:fr22au08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2008-0759]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; American Music Festival; Chesapeake Bay, Virginia
Beach, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a 420-foot radius safety zone
on the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront,
Virginia Beach, VA in support of the American Music Festival Fireworks
event. This action is intended to protect mariners from the hazards
associated with fireworks displays by restricting vessel traffic
movement in the vicinity of the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from August 29, 2008 at 10 p.m. until
August 31, 2008 at 11 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0759 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying in two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; and
the Sector Hampton Roads, Norfolk Federal Building, 200 Granby St., 7th
Floor, Norfolk, VA 23510 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call LT Tiffany Duffy, Chief Waterways Management
Division, Sector Hampton Roads at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to
public interest since immediate action is needed to provide for the
safety of life and property on navigable waters. Additionally, this
temporary safety zone will only be enforced for 1 hour on August 29,
2008 and for 1 hour on August 31, 2008 and should have minimal impact
on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels can safely transit
through the zone when authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
Representative and that they are not precluded from using any portion
of the waterway except the safety zone area itself. For the same
reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On August 29 and August 31, 2008, Dominion Fireworks will sponsor a
fireworks display on the Chesapeake Bay shoreline centered on position
36[deg]49'58'' N/75[deg]57'57'' W (NAD 1983). Due to the need to
protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display, access will be temporarily restricted within 420
feet of the fireworks launch site.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of the Chesapeake Bay within 420 feet of position 36[deg]49'58''
N/075[deg]57'57'' W (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be established in
the vicinity of Virginia Beach, VA on August 29, 2008 at 10 p.m. to
August 31, 2008 at 11 p.m. In the interest of public safety, access to
the safety zone will be restricted from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August
29, 2008 and from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 31, 2008. Except for
participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port or his representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access
to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard will make
notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor within the specified zone during the enforcement periods.
    The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the zone will only be
enforced for a limited time and is of limited size. Additionally,
vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. Before the effective
period, maritime advisories will be issued and made widely available to
waterway users.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3300,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0759, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0759  Safety Zone: American Music Festival Fireworks
Event, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: All
navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads zone,
as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-10, in the vicinity of the Virginia Beach
Oceanfront in Virginia Beach, VA and within 420 feet of position
36[deg]49'58'' N / 75[deg]57'57'' W (NAD 1983).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads and the Sector Duty
Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia can be
contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Captain of the Port Representative enforcing the safety
zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 13 (156.65
Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This rule is effective on August 29, 2008
from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. and on August 31, 2008 from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Dated: July 30, 2008.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E8-19533 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49155-49157]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0760]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River, Channahon, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Des Plaines River between mile marker 277.8 and mile marker 279.2,
Channahon, IL. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a
portion of the Des Plaines River from August 18, 2015 to August 19,
2015, with a rain date of August 20, 2015. This temporary safety zone
is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the
hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations
spanning the width of the river for a U.S. Army exercise.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2015 to
11:59 p.m. on August 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced with actual
notice from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August 19,
2015, or alternatively if postponed due to inclement weather, from 6:30
a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0760. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact or email LT Lindsay Cook, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit
Chicago, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final
details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there
was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM.
Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment
period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards
associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations spanning
the width of the river for a U.S. Army exercise.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    On August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, the U.S. Army will conduct
a bridging exercise spanning the width of the river. The Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the low flying aircraft and
bridging operations spanning the width of the river associated with
this exercise will pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the
hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, has determined that this temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of the public and the participants
during a U.S. Army exercise on a portion of the Des Plaines River from
mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2. This safety zone will be
enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August
19, 2015. If the event is postponed due to inclement weather, the
safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August
20, 2015, the allotted rain date. This zone will encompass all waters
of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30
p.m. during a two day period. Under certain conditions, moreover,
vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the
Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This
rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small
entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a
portion of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker
279.2 on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015 or on August 20, 2015.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Public Notice of Safety Zone so vessel owners and
operators can plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one

of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0760 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0760  Safety Zone; U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River,
Channahon, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters on the Des Plaines River between the mile
marker 277.8 and mile marker 279.2, Channahon, IL.
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from
12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on August 20, 2015. This
rule will be enforced with actual notice from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m.
on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, or alternatively if postponed
due to weather, from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan to
act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or an on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate
in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 6, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-20251 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48864-48869]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17586]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78375; File No. SR-BX-2016-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Affiliated Entities

July 20, 2016.
    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 July 8, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 transaction fees at
chapter XV to permit certain affiliated market participants to
aggregate eligible volume to all pricing in chapter XV, section 2(1)
for which a volume threshold or volume percentage is required to obtain
the pricing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.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 permit certain
affiliated market participants to aggregate volume in chapter XV,
section 2(1) for which a volume threshold or volume percentage is
required to obtain the pricing and qualify for various pricing
incentives. The Exchange's proposal is intended to incentivize
Participants to submit for execution a greater amount of order flow on
BX to obtain more advantageous pricing.
Affiliated Entity
    The Exchange proposes to add three definitions to chapter XV of BX
Options Rules. The Exchange proposes to define the terms ``Appointed
MM,'' ``Appointed OFP'' and ``Affiliated Entity.'' The Exchange
proposes to define the term ``Appointed MM'' as a BX Options Market
Maker \3\ who has been appointed by an Order Flow Provider (``OFP'')
for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated Entity. An OFP means is a
Participant that submits orders, as agent or principal, to the
Exchange.\4\ The Exchange proposes to define the term ``Appointed OFP''
as an OFP who has been appointed by a BX Options Market Maker for
purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated Entity. The Exchange proposes
to define the term ``Affiliated Entity'' as a relationship between an
Appointed MM and an Appointed OFP for purposes of aggregating eligible
volume for pricing in chapter XV, section 2(1) for which a volume
threshold or volume percentage is required to qualify for higher
rebates or lower fees. In order to become an Affiliated Entity, BX
Options Market Makers and OFPs will be required to send an email to the
Exchange to appoint their counterpart, at least 3 business days prior
to the last day of the month to qualify for the next month.\5\ For
example, with this proposal, market participants may submit emails to
the Exchange to become Affiliated Entities eligible to qualify for
discounted pricing starting August 1, 2016, provided the emails are
sent at least 3 business days prior to the first business day of August
2016. The Exchange will acknowledge receipt of the emails and specify
the date the Affiliated Entity is eligible for applicable pricing in
chapter XV, section 2(1). Each Affiliated Entity relationship will
commence on the 1st of a month and may not be terminated prior to the
end of any month. An Affiliated Entity relationship will terminate
after a one (1) year period, unless either party terminates earlier in
writing by sending an email to the Exchange at least 3 business days
prior to the last day of the month to terminate for the next month.
Affiliated Entity relationships must be renewed annually. For example,
if the start date of the Affiliated Entity relationship is August 1,
2016, the counterparties may determine to commence a new relationship
as of August 1, 2017 by sending two new emails by July 27, 2017 (3
business days prior to the end of the month). Participants under Common
Ownership \6\ may not qualify as a counterparty comprising an
Affiliated Entity. Each Participant may qualify for only one (1)
Affiliated Entity relationship at any given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to chapter VII, section 4. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
    \4\ Market Makers submitting quotes to the Exchange shall not be
considered Appointed OFPs for the purpose of becoming an Affiliated
Entity.
    \5\ The Exchange shall issue an Options Trader Alert specifying
the email address and details required to apply to become an
Affiliated Entity. Once the Exchange receives both emails, from the
Affiliated [sic] MM and the Affiliated [sic] OFP, the Exchange will
send a confirming email with the date of approval of the one (1)
year term.
    \6\ The term ``Common Ownership'' means Participants under 75%
common ownership or control. See chapter XV. Participants that are
under 75% common ownership or control shall be considered under
Common Ownership for purposes of pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an Affiliated Entity shall be eligible to aggregate
their volume for purposes of qualifying for certain pricing in chapter
XV, section 2(1) for which a volume threshold or volume percentage is
required to obtain a higher rebate or lower fee. With this proposal,
Affiliated Entities will be eligible to tier pricing in section 2(1) in
both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See BX Rules at Section 2(1) of chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter XV, Section 2(1)--Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options
Pricing
    Currently, the Exchange offers Customers,\8\ when trading with Non-
Customers,\9\ BX Options Market Makers or Firms \10\ the ability to
obtain higher Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options Tiers Schedule which exclude Select Symbols (``non-Select
Symbols'') with a tiered pricing model.\11\ Also, the Exchange offers
Customers, when trading with Customers, Non-Customers, BX Options
Market Makers or Firms the ability to obtain higher Penny Pilot Options
Rebates to Remove Liquidity in non-Select Symbols with a tiered pricing
model.\12\ Finally, the Exchange offers BX Options Market Makers, when
trading with Customers the ability to obtain lower Penny Pilot Options
Fees to Remove Liquidity in non-Select Symbols with a tiered pricing
model. \13\ This pricing is reflected at chapter XV, section 2(1) and
would be subject to aggregation by Affiliated Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation which is not for the
account of broker or dealer or for the account of a ``Professional''
(as that term is defined in chapter I, section 1(a)(48)).
    \9\ A Non-Customer includes a Professional, Broker-Dealer and
Non-BX Options Market Maker.
    \10\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range
at The Options Clearing Corporation.
    \11\ The Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity in non-
Select Symbols ranges from $0.00 to $0.20 per contract.
    \12\ The Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Remove Liquidity in non-
Select Symbols ranges from $0.00 to $0.35 per contract.
    \13\ Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity in non-Select
Symbols ranges from $0.30 to $0.39 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers Customers, when trading with Non-Customers, BX

Options Market Makers or Firms, the ability to obtain higher Penny
Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity in Select Symbols \14\ with a
tiered pricing model.\15\ The Exchange offers BX Options Market Makers,
when trading with Customers, the ability to obtain a lower Penny Pilot
Options Fees to Add Liquidity in Select Symbols with a tiered pricing
model.\16\ The Exchange offers Customers, when trading with Non-
Customers, BX Options Market Makers, Customers or Firms, the ability to
obtain higher Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Remove Liquidity in Select
Symbols with a tiered pricing model.\17\ The Exchange offers BX Options
Market Makers, when trading with Customers, the ability to obtain a
lower Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity in Select Symbols
with a tiered pricing model.\18\ Finally, the Exchange offers BX
Options Market Makers, when trading with Non-Customers, BX Options
Market Makers or Firms, the ability to obtain lower Fees to Add
Liquidity in Select Symbols with a tiered pricing model.\19\ This
pricing is reflected at chapter XV, section 2(1) and would be subject
to aggregation by Affiliated Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Select Symbols are: ASHR, DIA, DXJ, EEM, EFA, EWJ, EWT,
EWW, EWY, EWZ, FAS, FAZ, FXE, FXI, FXP, GDX, GLD, HYG, IWM, IYR,
KRE, OIH, QID, QLD, QQQ, RSX, SDS, SKF, SLV, SRS, SSO, TBT, TLT,
TNA, TZA, UNG, URE, USO, UUP, UVXY, UYG, VXX, XHB, XLB, XLE, XLF,
XLI, XLK, XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XME, XOP, XRT. See BX chapter XV,
section 2(1) pricing.
    \15\ Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity in Select
Symbols ranges from $0.00 to $0.25 per contract.
    \16\ Penny Pilot Options Fees to Add Liquidity in Select Symbols
ranges from $0.29 to $0.44 per contract.
    \17\ Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Remove Liquidity in Select
Symbols ranges from $0.00 to $0.37 per contract.
    \18\ Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity in Select
Symbols ranges from $0.25 to $0.42 per contract.
    \19\ Penny Pilot Options Fees to Add Liquidity in Select Symbols
ranges from $0.00 to $0.14 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange offers Customers, when trading with Non-
Customers, BX Options Market Makers or Firms, the ability to obtain
higher Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity with a tiered
pricing model.\20\ Also, the Exchange offers BX Options Market Makers,
when trading with Customers, the ability to obtain lower Non-Penny
Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity with a tiered pricing model.\21\
This pricing is reflected at chapter XV, section 2(1) and would be
subject to aggregation by Affiliated Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity ranges
from $0.00 to $0.20 per contract.
    \21\ Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity ranges
from $0.60 to $0.89 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pricing noted herein demonstrates instances where the tiered
pricing would provide a higher rebate or lower fee. In those cases
where the pricing is the same for all tiers, the aggregation would not
yield a higher rebate or lower fee.
    Currently, the Exchange also offers Customers, when trading with
Non-Customers, BX Options Market Makers, Customers or Firms, the
ability to obtain higher Rebates to Remove Liquidity in SPY Options in
a tiered pricing model.\22\ This pricing is reflected at chapter XV,
section 2(1) and would be subject to aggregation by Affiliated
Entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The SPY rebate ranges from $0.10 to $0.51 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would incentivize certain Participants, who
are not by definition under Common Ownership, to enter into an
Affiliated Entity relationship for the purpose of aggregating Customer
volume to qualify for reduced Penny Pilot Options and non-Penny Pilot
Options fees and higher Penny Pilot Options and non-Penny Pilot Options
rebates. With respect to the pricing and the Affiliated Entity
relationship, Appointed MMs would receive lower fees and Appointed OFPs
would receive higher rebates, as applicable with this aggregated
pricing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,\23\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the
Act,\24\ 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 or system which the
Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (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.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 29, 2005),
70 FR 37496 at 37499 (File No. S7-10-04) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\26\ (``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.\27\ 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.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \27\ See id. at 534-535.
    \28\ See 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'. . . .'' \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Commission
at Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 at 74782-74783
(December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend chapter XV, section 2 to add the
definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP'' and ``Affiliated
Entity'' is reasonable because the Exchange is proposing to identify
the applicable market participants that may qualify to aggregate volume
as an Affiliated Entity. Further the Exchange seeks to make clear the
manner in which Participants may participate on the Exchange as
Affiliated Entities by setting timeframes for communicating agreements
among market participants and terms of early termination. The Exchange
also clearly states that no Participant under Common Ownership may
become a counterparty to an Affiliated Entity. Any Participant who
meets the definition of Common Ownership shall not be eligible to
become an Affiliated Entity. The Exchange believes that these terms are
reasonable because they would allow

Participants to elect to become a counterparty to an Affiliated Entity,
provided they are not under Common Ownership.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend chapter XV, section 2 to add the
definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP'' and ``Affiliated
Entity'' is equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because all
Participants that are not under Common Ownership by definition may
choose to enter into an Affiliated Entity relationship.
Chapter XV, Section 2(1)--Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options
Pricing
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
volume for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for higher Penny Pilot
and Non-Penny Pilot Options, including SPY, rebates \30\ and qualifying
Appointed MMs for lower fees \31\ is reasonable because it will attract
additional Customer and non-Customer order flow to the Exchange.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts BX Options 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.
Also, the Exchange is incentivizing Participants to send non-Customer
order flow to BX, which order flow will benefit all Participants
because they may interact with the liquidity. Market participants
directing order flow as OFPs may be eligible to qualify for higher
rebates with this proposal as a result of aggregating volume with an
Appointed MM and thereby qualifying for higher rebates. Permitting
Participants to affiliate for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for
higher rebates and qualifying Appointed MMs for lower fees may also
encourage Affiliated Entities to incentivize each other to attract and
seek to execute more volume on BX. In turn, market participants would
benefit from the increased liquidity with which to interact and
potentially tighter spreads on orders. Overall, incentivizing market
participants with increased opportunities to earn higher rebates or
lower fees may increase the quality of the liquidity available on BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Exchange would permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
volume to obtain higher Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity
in non-Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Remove
Liquidity in non-Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add
Liquidity in Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Remove
Liquidity in Select Symbols and Non-Penny Pilot Options Rebates to
Add Liquidity.
    \31\ The Exchange would permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
volume to obtain lower Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity
in non-Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Fees to Add Liquidity in
Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity in
Select Symbols, Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity in
Select Symbols and Non-Penny Pilot Options Fees to Remove Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to permit Affiliated Entities to aggregate
volume for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for higher Penny Pilot
and Non-Penny Pilot Options, including SPY, rebates and qualifying
Appointed MMs for lower fees is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all BX Participants, other than those that meet
the definition of Common Ownership, may elect to become an Affiliated
Entity as either an Appointed MM or an Appointed OFP.\32\ Also, each BX
Participant may participate in only one Affiliated Entity relationship
at a given time, which imposes a measure of exclusivity among market
participants, allowing each party to rely on the other's executed
volume on BX to receive a corresponding benefit in terms of a higher
rebate or lower fee. Any market participant that by definition is not
under Common Ownership may elect to become a counterparty of an
Affiliated Entity. Also, BX Options Market Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. BX Options Market Makers
are subject to burdensome quoting obligations \33\ to the market that
do not apply to other market participants. Incentivizing these market
participants to execute volume on BX may result in tighter spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Both Participants must elect each other to qualify as an
Affiliated Entity for one year. Participation is effected by an
agreement of both parties. One party may elect to terminate the
agreement at any time.
    \33\ Pursuant to BX Rules at chapter VII, section 5, entitled
``Obligations of Market Makers,'' in registering as a market maker,
an Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a BX Options Market Maker must constitute a course
of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance
of a fair and orderly market, and BX Options Market Makers should
not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all BX Options
Market Makers are designated as specialists on BX for all purposes
under the Act or rules thereunder. See chapter VII, section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude Participants that are under
Common Ownership from qualifying as an Affiliated Entity is reasonable
because Participants under Common Ownership may aggregate volume today
for purposes of chapter XV, section 2(1) pricing.\34\ The Exchange's
proposal to exclude Participants that by definition are under Common
Ownership from qualifying as an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply all
qualifications in a uniform manner when approving Affiliated Entities.
Excluding Participants under Common Ownership from also qualifying as
an Affiliated Entity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because they are able to aggregate volume today and qualify for higher
rebates or lower fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See BX Rules at chapter XV for Common Ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that permitting Affiliated Entities to aggregate volume to
qualify for certain rebates and reduced fees will impose any undue
burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms.
    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 inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that other
options markets have similar incentives in place to attract volume to
their markets.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See NYSE MKT LLC's (``NYSE Amex'') pricing at NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule). NYSE Amex permits aggregation of volume to
qualify for the Amex Customer Engagement or ACE Program. See Bats
BZX Exchange, Inc.'s (``BZX'') fee schedule. BZX permits aggregation
of volume to qualify for tiered pricing. See the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') Fees Schedule. CBOE permits
aggregation of volume to qualify for credits available under an
Affiliated Volume Plan or ``AVP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend chapter XV, section 2 to add the
definitions of ``Appointed MM,'' ``Appointed OFP'' and ``Affiliated
Entity'' does not impose an undue burden on competition because these
definitions apply to all Participants uniformly.
Chapter XV, Section 2(1)--Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Options
Pricing
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal to permit counterparties of an Affiliated Entity to
aggregate volume for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for higher
rebates, including SPY, and qualifying Appointed MMs for lower fees
within chapter XV, section 2(1) imposes an undue burden on intra-market
competition because all BX Participants, other than those under Common
Ownership, may become an Affiliated Entity as either an Appointed MM or
an Appointed OFP. Also, each BX Participant may participate in only one
Affiliated Entity relationship at a given time, which imposes a measure
of exclusivity among market participants, allowing each party to rely
on the other's executed BX volume on BX to receive a corresponding
benefit in terms of a higher rebate or lower fee. The Exchange will
apply all qualifications in a uniform manner to all market participants
that elect to become counterparties of an Affiliated Entity. Any market
participant that by definition is a Participant under Common Ownership
may not become a counterparty of an Affiliated Entity. Also, BX Options
Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity
in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do
not incur. BX Options Market Makers are subject to burdensome quoting
obligations \36\ to the market that do not apply to other market
participants. Incentivizing these market participants to execute volume
on BX may result in tighter spreads. 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. Appointed OFPs directing order flow to the
Exchange may be eligible to qualify for a higher rebate and Appointed
MMs may be eligible to qualify for lower fees, with this proposal, as a
result of aggregating volume. Permitting Participants to affiliate for
purposes of qualifying for chapter XV, section 2(1) higher rebates or
lower fees may also encourage the counterparties that comprise the
Affiliated Entities to incentivize each other to attract and seek to
execute more volume on BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See note 33 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to exclude Participants that are under
Common Ownership from becoming an Affiliated Entity does not impose and
[sic] undue burden on intra-market competition because Participants
under Common Ownership may aggregate volume today for purposes of
qualifying for higher rebates or lower fees.

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.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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-BX-2016-034 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-BX-2016-034. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-BX-2016-034 and
should be submitted on or before August 16, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17586 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P