[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10858-10859]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04583]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FDA-2015-N-3403; FRL-9943-08]

Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products;
Notice of Second Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the auspices of the National Science and Technology
Council, EPA, along with the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) are holding a second public meeting
related to the memorandum entitled, ``Modernizing the Regulatory System
for Biotechnology Products,'' issued by the Executive Office of the
President (EOP) in July 2015. The purpose of the second public meeting
is to illustrate current federal roles and responsibilities regarding
biotechnology products. The docket, FDA-2015-N-3403, established by FDA
prior to the first public meeting will continue to be used for this
interagency effort.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 9, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to
1:00 p.m.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please immediately
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT to give
EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EPA Region 6 Office at 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2750.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions about the
meeting, contact Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions about the memorandum entitled,
``Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products,'' or
related activities described in that memorandum, contact the National
Science and Technology Council: Emerging Technologies Interagency
Policy Coordination Committee, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Executive Office of the President, Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 20504,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/contact-emerging-technologies-interagency-policy-coordinating-committee-national-science-and.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council,
EPA, FDA, USDA and OSTP (collectively referred to as ``we'' in this
Federal Register document), held a public meeting on October 30, 2015,
to discuss the Executive Office of the President (EOP) memorandum
entitled, ``Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology
Products,'' that was issued in July 2015. The purpose of the October
2015 meeting was to inform the public about the activities described in
the July 2015 memorandum; invite oral comments from interested parties;
and provide information about how to submit written comments, data, or
other information to the docket. The October meeting was the first of
three public engagement sessions on this topic.
    On February 1, 2016, we announced the dates and locations for the
second and third public engagement sessions: (1) https://wcms.epa.gov/pesticides/save-date-march-9-30-2016-public-meetings-updating-coordinated-framework-regulation; (2) http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/MeetingsConferencesWorkshops/ucm463783.htm; and (3) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/sa_stakeholder_meetings/cf_meeting.
    The second public meeting will be held on March 9, 2016, from 9:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at EPA's Region 6 Office in Dallas, Texas. The second
public meeting will be used to illustrate current federal roles and
responsibilities regarding biotechnology products. The final meeting
agenda will be placed in the docket [FDA-2015-N-3403] as soon as it is
available.
    The third public meeting will be held on March 30, 2016, at the
University of California's Davis Conference Center in Davis, California
and information about that meeting, including an agenda and information
regarding how to register will be placed in the docket and on the USDA
Web site prior to the meeting.

II. How can I participate in the March 9th meeting?

    To participate in person or by webinar via Adobe Connect, please
register online at http://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/modernizing-regulatory-system-biotechnology-products.
    Those registered will receive detailed instructions with their
confirmations that explain how to access the meeting via webinar or in
person.

III. Meeting Materials, Transcripts and Recorded Video

    Any additional information and data submitted voluntarily to us
will become part of the administrative record for this activity and
will be accessible to the public in the docket [FDA-2015-N-3403] at
http://www.regulations.gov. The transcript of the proceedings from the
public meeting will become part of the administrative record for this
activity and will also be included in the docket. Please be advised
that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible in the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts and meeting materials may also be viewed at the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A transcript will be
available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a
Freedom of Information request. Written requests are to be sent to the
FDA Division of Freedom of Information, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1035,
Rockville, MD 20857. Additionally, we will live webcast and record the
public meeting. Once the recorded video is available, it will be
accessible on EPA's YouTube Channel.

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Mark A. Hartman,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-04583 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57094-57097]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23603]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65311; File No. SR-C2-2011-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to Opening and Complex Order Price Check Parameter Features

September 9, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 26, 2011, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing
price check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to
include an additional price check parameter feature for its complex
order process. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/RuleFilings.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has in place various price check parameter features
that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically
executing at potentially erroneous prices. These price check parameter
features are designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. The
Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing price
check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to include
an additional price check parameter feature for its complex order
process. The Exchange believes the below-described protection features
will enhance the existing functionality and assist with the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets by providing an automated process that
helps to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders drilling
through multiple price points on the opening (thereby resulting in
executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous) and
complex orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with particular
complex order strategies (thereby resulting in executions at prices
that are extreme and potentially erroneous).
    With respect to opening rotations, the Exchange is proposing to
amend Rule 6.11, Openings (and sometimes Closings), to extend the
application of an existing price check parameter feature to apply to
the opening order exposure process. By way of background, currently the
Exchange has in place a price check parameter under Rule 6.17, Price
Check Parameters, which provides in relevant part that the Exchange
will not automatically execute eligible orders that are marketable if
the execution would follow an initial partial execution on the Exchange
and would be at a subsequent price that is not within an acceptable
tick distance from the initial execution (which is equivalent to the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'')). For purposes of this provision,
the acceptable tick distance is determined by the Exchange on a series-
by-series and premium basis for market orders and/or marketable limit
orders (provided it is not less than 2 minimum increment ticks) and
announced via Regulatory Circular. Also by way of background, currently
as part of the opening rotation process, additional steps are
automatically taken through an order exposure process to address
certain opening quote, acceptable price range, market order imbalance,
and NBBO conditions. At the conclusion of the order exposure process,
the remaining balance of any orders are automatically executed if
marketable or booked if not marketable, except that any remaining
balance of opening contingency orders not executed after an exposure on
the opening are automatically cancelled. Orders that are subject to
this opening order exposure process are not currently subject to the
price check parameter described above.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the
application of the existing price check protection feature to apply to
orders that are subject to the opening order exposure process, with
certain modifications described below. In particular, the Exchange is
proposing to amend Rule 6.11 to instead provide that, following the
exposure process, the Exchange will not automatically execute or book
the remaining balance of any orders not executed after an exposure on
the opening that are priced or would execute at a price that is not
within an acceptable tick distance from the initial exposure price. Any
remaining balance of such orders will be cancelled.\5\ The ``acceptable
tick distance'' will be determined by the Exchange on a series-by-
series and premium basis and will be the same as the acceptable tick
distance established under Rule 6.17. In accordance with Rule 6.11.02,
all pronouncements regarding the acceptable tick distances determined
by the Exchange will be announced via Regulatory Circular. The Exchange
notes that the only distinctions in the application of the existing
price check parameter to the opening order exposure process are that:
(i) The price from which the acceptable tick distance is measured will
be the initial exposure price,\6\ not the NBBO; and (ii) all orders
that are part of the opening order exposure process will be subject to
the price check parameter, not just market orders and/or marketable
limit orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that opening contingency orders are
currently subject to the order exposure process and, under the price
check parameter, would also be subject to execution at prices within
the acceptable tick distance. Any remaining balance of any opening
contingency order that is not executed within the acceptable tick
distance will be cancelled.
    \6\ The initial exposure price varies depending on the
particular conditions that exist. For certain conditions, the
initial exposure price is the NBBO. For other conditions, the
initial exposure price is the widest point within the acceptable
opening range or the NBBO, whichever is better. See Rule 6.11(e)-
(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange may determine that an acceptable tick

distance for a series trading in penny increments with premiums ranging
from $1.00-$2.99 is five ticks (i.e., $0.05). Thus, if the initial
exposure price for a series is $1.20, any remaining balance of an order
not executed via the exposure process will be cancelled to the extent
the order is priced or would execute at a price that is more than $0.05
away from the initial exposure price of $1.20 (e.g., a market order to
buy that would execute above $1.25 or a limit order to buy that is
priced above $1.25).
    The Exchange believes that extending the existing price protection
feature to include the opening exposure process will assist with the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the
potential risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price
points when the Exchange first opens for trading (thereby resulting in
executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous).
Rather than automatically executing or booking orders at extreme and
potentially erroneous prices, the Exchange will cancel orders that
exceed the price check parameter back to order entry firms so that the
orders can be further evaluated.
    With respect to the complex order process, the Exchange is
proposing to amend Rule 6.13, Complex Order Execution, to include a new
price check parameter feature. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing
to introduce a new price check parameter feature (the ``buy-buy/sell-
sell strategy parameter'') that the Exchange may determine to make
available on a class-by-class basis (and announce via Regulatory
Circular in accordance with Rule 6.13.01). In classes where the buy-
buy/sell-sell strategy parameter feature is activated, the complex
order book (``COB'') will not automatically execute an eligible complex
order that is a limit order where (i) All the components of the
strategy are to buy and the order is priced at zero, any net credit
price, or a net debit price that is less than the number of individual
option series legs in the strategy (or applicable ratio) multiplied by
the applicable minimum net price increment for the complex order; or
(ii) all the components of the strategy are to sell and the order is
priced at zero, any net debit price, or a net credit price that is less
than the number of individual option series legs in the strategy (or
applicable ratio) multiplied by the applicable minimum net price
increment for the complex order. Such a complex order under this
feature will be rejected (and, thus, could not route to COB or the
complex order RFR auction (``COA'') for processing). As proposed, in
classes where the buy-buy/sell-sell strategy parameter feature is
available, it will also be available for COA responses under Rule
6.13(c), complex orders and responses under Rule 6.51, Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''), and 6.52, Solicitation Auction
Mechanism (``SAM''), and AIM customer-to-customer immediate crosses
under Rule 6.51.08 (``CTC'').\7\ Such paired complex orders and
responses under these provisions will be rejected. In this regard, if
any paired order submitted by an order entry firm for AIM, SAM or CTC
processing exceeds the parameters, then both the order that exceeds the
parameters and the paired contra-side order will be rejected regardless
of whether the contra-side order exceeds the parameters. However, to
the extent that only the paired contra-side order submitted by an order
entry firm for AIM or SAM processing would exceed the price check
parameter, the paired contra-side order will be rejected while the
original Agency Order may be rejected or, at the order entry firm's
discretion, continue processing as an unpaired complex order (e.g., the
original Agency Order would route to COB or COA for processing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ AIM, SAM and CTC are mechanisms that may be used to cross
two paired orders. COA is a mechanism that may be used to expose an
unpaired complex order for price improvement. Orders submitted for
COA, AIM or SAM or COA processing are exposed for price improvement
through an auction (and thus other market participants may submit
responses), whereas orders submitted for CTC processing are executed
immediately without exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, under the new buy-buy/sell-sell strategy parameter
feature, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call where the individual
option series trades in a minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum
net price increment for the complex order is $0.01 would be rejected if
it has a net price of $0.00, any net debit price, or a net credit price
that is less than $0.01 ($0.01 x (1 option leg)).\8\ Such an order
would appear to be erroneously priced because normally a person selling
one series would expect to receive a net credit price of at least $0.01
(a price of at least $0.01--the minimum net price trading increment for
the complex order--for the series being sold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If, for example, the individual option series trades in a
minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for
the complex order is $0.05, then the minimum net credit price
calculation for the scenario above would be $0.05 ($0.05 x (1
options leg)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another example, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call and sell 1
Mar 50 call where the individual option series trade in a minimum
increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for the complex
order is $0.01 would be rejected if it has a net price of $0.00, any
net debit price, or a net credit price that is less than $0.02 ($0.01 x
(2 options legs)).\9\ Such an order would appear to be erroneously
priced because normally a person selling two series would expect to
receive a net credit price of at least $0.02 (a price of at least
$0.01--the minimum net price increment for the complex order--for each
series being sold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If, for example, the individual option series trades in a
minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for
the complex order is $0.05, then the minimum net credit price
calculation for the scenario above would be $0.10 ($0.05 x (2
options legs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another example, assume two paired complex orders are submitted
to an AIM auction and the minimum net price increment for the complex
orders is $0.01. If the original Agency Order is a market order to sell
1 Mar 45 call and sell 1 Mar 50 call (which satisfies the price check
parameter because the parameter is only triggered by limit prices), but
the contra-side order to buy 1 Mar 45 call and buy 1 Mar 50 call has a
net price of $0.00, the AIM auction will not initiate because the
contra-side order does not satisfy the price check parameter. Such a
contra-side order would appear to be erroneously priced because
normally a person buying two series would expect to pay a net debit
price of at least $0.02 (a price of at least $0.01--the minimum net
price increment for the complex order--for each series being
purchased). The contra-side order would be rejected. The paired
original Agency Order would either be rejected along with the contra-
side order or, at the order entry firm's discretion, continue
processing as an unpaired complex order.
    The Exchange believes that this new price protection feature will
assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to
mitigate the potential risks associated with complex orders that are
entered at net limit prices that are inconsistent with the particular
``buy-buy'' or ``sell-sell'' strategy (thereby resulting in execution
at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous). Rather than
automatically execute, book or auction orders at prices inconsistent
with the strategy, the Exchange will reject the orders back to the
order entry firms.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that the proposed buy-buy/sell-sell
strategy parameter feature for limit orders is very similar to the
logic behind an existing debit-to-credit/credit-to-debit strategy
parameter feature and an existing vertical/butterfly strategy
parameter feature under Rule 6.13.04(b) and (c), respectively. These
existing price protection parameters also prevent complex orders
from being automatically executed or booked at prices that would be
inconsistent with the particular complex order strategies.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\11\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \12\ in particular in that it should promote just and equitable
principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will assist in the automatic execution and
processing of orders that are subject to the Exchange's opening and
complex order processing. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change will enhance the existing price check parameter functionality
and assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by
providing an automated process that helps to mitigate the potential
risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price points on
the opening (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme
and potentially erroneous) and complex orders trading at prices that
are inconsistent with particular complex order strategies (thereby
resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially
erroneous).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay will enable the Exchange to
implement these protection promptly, which will allow market
participants to benefit from these protections without delay. In
addition, the Exchange notes that the proposed opening price check
parameter feature is an extension of the Exchange's existing price
check parameter feature with certain modifications (as discussed above)
and is intended to address problematic executions that have previously
occurred on the open. The Exchange further notes that the proposed new
complex order price check parameter feature is similar to existing
price check parameter features for complex orders (as discussed above)
and is designed to address problematic executions that have previously
occurred with complex orders. The Exchange has informed the Commission
that it is proposing these changes in response to requests the Exchange
received from market participants. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, and designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2011-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2011-018. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2011-018 and should be
submitted on or before October 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23603 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48002-48007]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17244]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89454; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 to Proposed Rule Change To Establish
a Wireless Fee Schedule Setting Forth Available Wireless Bandwidth
Connections and Associated Fees

August 3, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On January 30, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05) to
establish a schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and Charges
(``Wireless Fee Schedule'') listing available wireless bandwidth
connections between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and other data
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission published the proposed rule change for public
comment in the Federal Register on February 18, 2020.\3\ The Commission
received several comments on the proposed rule change, and a response
from the Exchange.\4\ On April 1, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On May 18, 2020, the Commission instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.\7\ The Commission received additional comments in response
to the Order Instituting Proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88169 (February 11,
2020), 85 FR 8946 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05)
(``Wireless I Notice''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 88168 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8938 (February 18, 2020) (SR-
NYSE-2020-05); 88170 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8956 (February 18,
2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-08); 88172 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8923
(February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSECHX-2020-02); and 88171 (February 11,
2020), 85 FR 8930 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-03).
    \4\ Comments received on the Wireless I Notice and the
Exchange's response are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-05/srnyseamer202005.htm.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88539 (April 1,
2020), 85 FR 19553 (April 7, 2020). The Commission designated May
18, 2020, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule changes.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88901 (May 18,
2020), 85 FR 31273 (May 22, 2020) in which the Commission instituted
proceedings (``Order Instituting Proceedings'' or ``OIP'').
    \8\ Comments received on the Wireless I Notice following the OIP
also are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-05/srnyseamer202005.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2020, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change in response to certain comments on the proposed
rule change. Partial Amendment No. 1 is described in Item II below,
which has been substantially prepared by the Exchange.\9\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Partial
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission has reformatted the Exchange's presentation
of the footnotes.
    \10\ Partial Amendment No. 1 is also available on the
Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-05/srnyseamer202005.htm. The Commission also refers interested
persons to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88238 (February 19,
2020), 85 FR 10776 (February 25, 2020) (SR-NYSEAMER-2020-10)
(wherein the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend the
proposed Wireless Fee Schedule to add ``Wireless Market Data
Connections'' and associated fees (``Wireless II'') and concurrently
proposes to partially amend Wireless II). Partial Amendment No. 1 to
Wireless II is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2020-10/srnyseamer202010.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Amendment

    NYSE American LLC (``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') hereby submits
this Partial Amendment No. 1 to the above-referenced filing
(``Filing''), in connection with the proposed rule

change to establish a schedule of Wireless Connectivity Fees and
Charges (the ``Wireless Fee Schedule'') with wireless connections
between the Mahwah, New Jersey data center and other data centers. With
this Partial Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes a new rule to place
restrictions on the use of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center that is used for such wireless connections.
    The Exchange proposes the following amendments to the Filing:
    1. The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph in Item 1(a)
on page 3 of the Filing:
    The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph of Item 1(a) on
page 3 of the Filing to add ``(a)'' before ``establish'' and add new
text at the end of the paragraph to describe the proposed rule change,
as follows (new text underlined):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU20.010

    2. The Exchange proposes to amend the carryover paragraph on pages
3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page 24 of the Exhibit
1):
    The Exchange proposes to add a sentence at the end of the carryover
paragraph on pages 3 and 4 of the Filing (second full paragraph on page
24 of the Exhibit 1) to describe the proposed rule change, as follows
(new text underlined):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU20.011

    3. The Exchange proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New
Rule'' and accompanying footnotes after the first full paragraph on
page 14 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 39 of the Exhibit
1):
    The Exchange proposes a new rule to place restrictions on the use
of a pole on the grounds of the Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is
used for wireless connectivity services. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to add a new section titled ``Proposed New Rule'' with
accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a
conforming change) after the first full paragraph on page 14 of the
Filing (first full paragraph on page 39 of the Exhibit 1), after the
end of the section titled

``Proposed General Note,'' as follows (all text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    Since 2016, IDS has had the use of a pole on the grounds of the
Mahwah data center.25/26 The data center pole is part of
the network utilized for the Wireless Connections to the Carteret
and Secaucus Third Party Data Centers.26/27 At the data
center pole, the wireless connection to the Third Party Data Centers
converts to a fiber connection, and the fiber connection travels
from the data center pole into the Mahwah data
center.27/28 The equipment on the data center pole
belongs to IDS and Anova Technologies, LLC (``Anova''), the non-ICE
entity that owns the wireless network used for the Wireless
Connections to Secaucus and Carteret.28/29
    Other third parties that offer wireless services utilize
commercial poles located outside the grounds of the Mahwah, New
Jersey data center for their wireless networks. A third party's
wireless connections to the Third Party Data Center convert to fiber
connections at the commercial pole, and the fiber connects the
commercial pole to the Mahwah data center.
    Several such third parties have objected to the use of the data
center pole for the Wireless Connections. They argue that IDS has an
advantage over its competitors because third parties are not allowed
access to the data center pole,29/30 and the data center
pole is closer to the Mahwah data center than any commercial
pole.30/31 At least one third party has raised the
additional concern that the Wireless Connections may benefit from
``less obvious and more discreet types of latency advantages'' due
to infrastructure inside the Mahwah data center, noting that ``some
connections may have a longer fiber route than others within a data
center or may have to go through various equipment or meet me rooms
that an affiliate or preferred provider of an exchange do not.''
31/32
    The Exchange is proposing a new Rule 3.13E (Data Center Pole
Latency Restrictions--Connectivity to Co-Location Space) that would
require that the length of the connection from the data center pole
to the network row in the space used for co-location in the Mahwah
data center (i.e., the point where the Wireless Connections lead) be
no less than the length of the connection from the closest
commercial pole to the same point. By requiring that the compared
connections both extend to the network row in the space used for co-
location, the proposed rule would take distances within the Mahwah
data center into account.
    The proposed rule would include the following definitions:
     ``Commercial Pole'' would mean a pole (a) on which one
or more third parties locate wireless equipment used to offer
wireless connectivity to other third parties, and (b) from which a
fiber connection extends from third party equipment on the pole to
the Data Center.
     ``Data Center'' would mean the Mahwah, New Jersey data
center where the Exchange's matching engine is located, or its
successor.
     ``Data Center Pole'' would mean a pole that (a) holds
wireless equipment, (b) is located within the grounds of the Data
Center, and (c) cannot be used by third parties other than third
parties with which the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate has an agreement
to provide services in the name of the Exchange or an ICE Affiliate.
     ``ICE Affiliate'' would mean Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc. (``ICE'') and any entity that directly or indirectly, through
one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with ICE, where ``control'' means that one entity
possesses, directly or indirectly, voting control of the other
entity either through ownership of capital stock or other equity
securities or through majority representation on the board of
directors or other management body of such entity.

    The proposed rule would require that:

The length of the connection between (a) the base of the Data Center
Pole and (b) the network row in the space used for co-location in
the Data Center shall be no less than the length of the connection
between (x) the base of the closest Commercial Pole and (y) the
network row in the space used for co-location in the Data Center.

    In a conforming change, the Exchange proposes to add a new Rule
3.12E, marked ``Reserved.'' The addition would allow the numbering
of the proposed Rule 3.13E to be consistent with changes proposed by
the Affiliate SROs to their rules.32/33

25/26 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76750
(December 23, 3015), 80 FR 81648 (December 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-
2015-85) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to the Co-location
Services Offered by the Exchange (the Offering of a Wireless
Connection to Allow Users to Receive Market Data Feeds from Third
Party Markets) and to Reflect Changes to the NYSE MKT Equities Price
List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule Related to These
Services).
26/27 The Wireless Connections with Markham, Canada do
not use equipment on the data center pole.
27/28 The wireless network similarly converts to a fiber
connection for its connection into the Third Party Data Centers.
28/29 Equipment for services Anova offers under its own
name is not allowed on the data center pole.
29/30 IDS does not sell rights to third parties to
operate wireless equipment on the data center pole due to space
limitations, security concerns, and the interference that would
arise between equipment placed too closely together.
30/31 See letter from Gregory Babyak, Global Head of
Regulatory Affairs, Bloomberg L.P., to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
dated June 12, 2020; letter from Stephen John Berger, Managing
Director, Global Head of Government and Regulatory Policy, Citadel
Securities, to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission, dated
June 12, 2020; letter from Jim Considine, Chief Financial Officer,
McKay Brothers LLC (``McKay Brothers''), to Ms. Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated June 12, 2020 (``McKay Letter''); and
letter from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Virtu
Financial, Inc. to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
dated March 10, 2020.
31/32 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 9.
32/33 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88168
(February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8938, (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-
05); 88170 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8956 (February 18, 2020) (SR-
NYSEArca-2020-08); 88172 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR 8923 (February
18, 2020) (SR-NYSECHX-2020-02); 88171 (February 11, 2020), 85 FR
8930 (February 18, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-03) (notice of filing of
proposed rule change to establish a Schedule of Wireless
Connectivity Fees and Charges with wireless connections).

    4. The Exchange proposes to add new text after the third full
paragraph on page 15 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 41 of
the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Filing to include additional
analysis of the competitive environment for wireless connections.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph and accompanying
footnote (subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming
change) after the third full paragraph on page 15 of the Filing (first
full paragraph on page 41 of the Exhibit 1), as follows (all text new):

    The Exchange believes that its competitors' wireless connections
provide connectivity at the same or similar speed as the Wireless
Connections, and at the same or similar cost. Indeed, the McKay
Letter acknowledges that McKay Brothers has the fastest wireless
network.34/35

34/35 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 4.

    5. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the first full paragraph on page 18 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 45 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is reasonable. The
Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of the Filing to
add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes
would be renumbered in a conforming change) after the first full
paragraph on page 18 of the Filing (first full paragraph on page 45 of
the Exhibit 1), at the end of the section titled ``The Proposed Change
is Reasonable,'' as follows (all text is new):

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.13E would be
reasonable as, pursuant to the rule, the networks for the Wireless
Connections, and future wireless connections that use a Data Center
Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as

competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 39/40 Accordingly, the
proposed new rule would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
ensuring that the subscribers to services using the IDS wireless
network do not benefit from any physical proximity ``on the segment
[of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that no
competitor can replicate.'' 40/41 By ending both of the
compared connections at the network row in the space used for co-
location, the proposed rule would take distances within the Mahwah
data center into account.
    The proposed new rule would not apply differently to distinct
types or sizes of market participants. The Exchange would be
required to ensure that the length of the connection between (a) the
base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the network row in the space
used for co-location in the Data Center, would be no less than the
length of the connection between (x) the base of the closest
Commercial Pole and (y) the network row in the space used for co-
location in the Data Center.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of
``Commercial Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and
equitable principles of trade because it would encompass any pole on
which a third party locates its wireless equipment in order to offer
wireless connectivity to customers. The Exchange believes that such
third parties are the direct competitors for the Wireless
Connections, as they also offer wireless connections to customers.
If a third party used a pole for a proprietary wireless network and
that pole does not have one or more third parties' wireless
equipment used to offer wireless connectivity to other third
parties, that pole would not fall within the scope of the definition
of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would capture any data center to
which the Exchange locates its matching engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center Pole'' is reasonable and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade because it would encompass not just the current
pole, but also any additional or successor pole on the grounds of
the Data Center, so long as such pole could not be used by third
parties other than third parties with which the Exchange or an ICE
Affiliate had an agreement to provide services in the name of the
Exchange or an ICE Affiliate, such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
is reasonable and would promote just and equitable principles of
trade because the same definition is used in Rule 497-Equities
(Affiliation between Exchange and a Member
Organization),41/42 and so using it would add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

39/40 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 7.
40/41 Id., at note 33.
41/42 The definition of ICE has been added to the text.

    6. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis section of
the Filing after the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 48 of the Exhibit 1):
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange proposes to amend the Statutory Basis
section of the Filing to add new paragraphs and accompanying footnotes
(subsequent footnotes would be renumbered in a conforming change) after
the fifth full paragraph on page 19 of the Filing (first full paragraph
on page 48 of the Exhibit 1), immediately prior to the last paragraph
of the section titled ``The Proposed Change is Not Unfairly
Discriminatory,'' as follows (all text is new):
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Rule 3.13E would not be
unfairly discriminatory, as pursuant to the rule, the networks for the
Wireless Connections, and future wireless connections that use the Data
Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as competitors do
today without a latency subsidy or other advantage provided by the
Exchanges. . . .'' 42/43 Accordingly, the proposed new rule
would ensure that the IDS wireless network does not benefit from
physical proximity ``on the segment [of the network] closest to the
Exchanges' data center that no competitor can replicate.''
43/44 By ending both of the compared connections at the
network row in the space used for co-location inside the Data Center,
the proposed rule would take distances within the Mahwah data center
into account.
    The proposed new rule would not apply differently to distinct types
or sizes of market participants. The Exchange would be required to
ensure that the length of the connection between (a) the base of the
Data Center Pole and (b) the network row in the space used for co-
location in the Data Center, would be no less than the length of the
connection between (x) the base of the closest Commercial Pole and (y)
the network row in the space used for co-location in the Data Center.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Commercial
Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would encompass
any pole on which a third party locates its wireless equipment in order
to offer wireless connectivity to customers. The Exchange believes that
such third parties are the direct competitors for the Wireless
Connections, as they also offer wireless connections to customers. If a
third party used a pole for a proprietary wireless network and that
pole does not have one or more third parties' wireless equipment used
to offer wireless connectivity to other third parties, that pole would
not fall within the scope of the definition of Commercial Pole.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data
Center'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would capture
any data center to which the Exchange locates its matching engine.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``Data Center
Pole'' would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would encompass
not just the current pole, but also any additional or successor pole on
the grounds of the Data Center, so long as such pole could not be used
by third parties other than third parties with which the Exchange or an
ICE Affiliate had an agreement to provide services in the name of the
Exchange or an ICE Affiliate, such as Anova.
    The Exchange believes that the definition of ``ICE Affiliate''
would not be unfairly discriminatory because the same definition is
used in Rule 497-Equities,44/45 and so using it would add
transparency, clarity and internal consistency to Exchange rules.

42/43 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at 7.
43/44 Id., at note 33.
44/45 The definition of ICE has been added to the text.

    7. The Exchange proposes to amend the section of the Filing titled
``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition''
in the following two ways:
    The Exchange proposes to include information in the Filing
regarding why it believes the proposed new rule would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'').\11\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the
section of the Filing titled ``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement
on Burden on Competition'' in the following two ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, to set the new text apart from the previous discussion
regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange proposes to add the
heading ``Wireless Market Data Connectivity'' immediately before the
first full paragraph under the heading on page 20 of the Filing (page
48 of the Exhibit 1). The new heading would apply to the current text
of the Filing.
    Second, after the third full paragraph on page 21 of the Filing
(first full paragraph on page 51 of the Exhibit 1),

the Exchange proposes to add the heading ``Proposed New Rule'' and new
paragraphs and accompanying footnotes (subsequent footnotes would be
renumbered in a conforming change), as follows (all text is new):

Proposed New Rule

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed new rule would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the
Act.48/49
    With the exception of Anova, third parties do not have access to
the data center pole. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange would
always be obligated to ensure that the length of the connection
between (a) the base of the Data Center Pole and (b) the network row
in the space used for co-location in the Data Center, would be no
less than the length of the connection between (x) the base of the
closest Commercial Pole and (y) the network row in the space used
for co-location in the Data Center.
    IDS, not the Exchange, provides the Wireless Connections to
market participants, and so it would be IDS that would have to slow
its connection down as required by the rule. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the only burden on competition of the
proposed change would be on IDS.
    Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate because the proposed change would ensure that the IDS
wireless network did not benefit from physical proximity ``on the
segment [of the network] closest to the Exchanges' data center that
no competitor can replicate.'' 49/50 The networks for the
Wireless Connections, and future wireless connections that use the
Data Center Pole, would ``operat[e] in the same manner as
competitors do today without a latency subsidy or other advantage
provided by the Exchanges. . . .'' 50/51
    The proposed rule would not otherwise put a burden on
competition. As noted above, access to the data center pole is not
required for third parties to establish wireless networks that can
compete with the Wireless Connections to the Carteret and Secaucus
Third Party Data Centers, as evidenced by the existing wireless
connections offered by non-ICE entities.51/52 Indeed, the
Exchange believes that its competitors' wireless connections provide
connectivity at the same or similar speed as the Wireless
Connections, and at the same or similar cost. The McKay Letter
acknowledges that McKay Brothers has the fastest wireless
network.52/53
    The Exchange notes that proximity to a data center is not the
only determinant of a wireless network's latency. Rather, the
latency of a wireless network depends on several factors. Variables
include the wireless equipment utilized; the route of, and number of
towers or buildings in, the network; and the fiber equipment used at
either end of the connection. Moreover, latency is not the only
consideration that a customer may have in selecting a wireless
network to connect to for market data. Other considerations may
include the amount of network uptime; the equipment that the network
uses; the cost of the connection; and the applicable contractual
provisions.
    The proposed change does not affect competition among national
securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange, but rather
between IDS and its commercial competitors.

48/49 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
49/50 McKay Letter, supra note 30/31, at note 33.
50/51 Id., at 7.
51/52 A market participant in any of the Third Party Data
Centers or the Mahwah data center also may create a proprietary
wireless market data connection, connect through another market
participant, or utilize fiber connections offered by the Exchange,
ICE Affiliates, and other service providers and third party
telecommunications providers.
52/53 Id., at 4.

    8. The Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of
the Proposed Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing:
    The Exchange proposes to add a new Exhibit 5B. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to add a list under ``Exhibit 5--Text of Proposed
Rule Change'' on page 22 of the Filing, as follows (new text
underlined):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU20.012

    9. The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full
paragraph of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1:
    The Exchange proposes to add new text to the first full paragraph
of Section I on page 23 of the Exhibit 1, as follows (new text
underlined):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU20.013

    10. The Exchange proposes to amend ``Exhibit 5'' to ``Exhibit 5A''
on page 54 of the Exhibit 5:
    To reflect the addition of a new Exhibit 5B, the Exchange proposes
to add ``A'' to ``EXHIBIT 5'' on page 54 of the Exhibit 5, to make it
to ``EXHIBIT 5A''.
* * * * *
    All other representations in the Filing remain as stated therein
and no other changes are being made.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change As Modified By
Partial Amendment No. 1 and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 180 days after the date of publication of the initial Notice
of Filing in the Federal Register or within such longer period up to an
additional 60 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will issue an order approving or disapproving such
proposed rule change, as amended.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-05, and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17244 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 18037-18039]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Porsche

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Porsche Cars
North America, Inc. (Porsche) for an exemption in accordance with Sec.
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard, for the Porsche Panamera vehicle line beginning with model
year (MY) 2010. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated February 17, 2009,
Porsche requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Porsche
Panamera vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. The petition requested an
exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an
antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption

for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Porsche provided
a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and
location of the components of the antitheft device for its new Porsche
Panamera vehicle line. Porsche stated that all Porsche Panamera
vehicles will be equipped with a passive antitheft device as standard
equipment beginning with MY 2010. Key components of the antitheft
device will include a microprocessor-based immobilizer system,
electronic ignition switch, transponder key, remote control unit,
alarm/central locking control unit, optional keyless entry system and
electronic parking brake. The device will also be equipped with an
audible and visible alarm. Additionally, Porsche stated that the
central locking system works in conjunction with the audible and
visible alarm. Locking the doors with the ignition key, the remote
control or a door switch (with the keyless entry option) will activate
the audible and visible alarm. An ultrasonic sensor in the alarm system
will monitor the doors, rear luggage compartment, front deck lid, fuel
filler door, and interior movement. The horn will sound and the lights
will flash if there is any detection of unauthorized use. Porsche's
submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    Porsche stated that its immobilizer prevents the engine management
system and steering system from functioning when the system is engaged.
The immobilizer is automatically activated when the key is removed from
the ignition switch assembly, or the optional special keyless entry
keycard exits the vehicle with the driver. The immobilizer then returns
to its normal ``off'' state, where engine starting, operation, and
steering are not allowed. Starting the engine and operation of the
vehicle will be allowed only when the correct code is sent to the
control unit by using the correct key in the ignition switch, or by
having the correct keyless entry keycard within the occupant
compartment of the car. The ignition key contains a radio signal
transponder, which signals the control unit to allow steering and the
engine to be started. With the keyless entry system, operation of the
vehicle is allowed when the ignition key is substituted with the
special keycard that contains a radio signal transmitter similar to the
transponder in the standard ignition key.
    The central locking system works in conjunction with the audible
and visible alarm. Locking the doors with the ignition key, the remote
control or a door switch (with the keyless entry option) will activate
the audible and visible alarm.
    Porsche will also equip the Panamera vehicle line with an
electronically activated parking brake which it states is integrated
into the vehicle's antitheft device. If the control unit does not
receive the correct code from the ignition key or keycard, the parking
brake will remain activated and the vehicle cannot be towed away.
    Since the Porsche Panamera is a new vehicle line, there is
currently no available theft rate data published by the agency for the
vehicle line. However, Porsche provided data on the effectiveness of
other similar antitheft devices installed on its 911 and Boxster
vehicle lines in support of its belief that its device will be at least
as effective as those comparable devices previously granted exemptions
by the agency. Porsche's data showed that the theft rate for the two
vehicle lines remained consistently low over a 3-year period. The
average theft rate using three MY's data for the Porsche 911 and
Boxster are 0.8261 and 0.8784 respectively. Based on the experience of
these vehicle lines, Porsche has concluded that the antitheft device
proposed for its Porsche Panamera vehicle line is no less effective
than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted
full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. The agency agrees
that the device is substantially similar to devices in these and other
vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Porsche
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Porsche
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Porsche provided
a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., extreme temperature
tests, voltage spike tests, reverse polarity tests, electromagnetic
interference tests, vibration tests and endurance tests) and believes
that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with
its specific requirements for each test. Additionally, Porsche stated
that the antitheft device also features a built-in self-diagnostic that
constantly checks for system failures. If a failure is detected, an
alarm indicator signals the driver.
    Porsche further states that disablement of the immobilizer is
virtually impossible. Disconnecting power to the antitheft device does
not affect the operation of the device. Once the antitheft device is
activated, the device stays activated until the correct key or optional
keycard is used to instruct the engine management system through code
to begin functioning again. Porsche also stated that the immobilizer
cannot be disabled by manipulation of the door locks or central-locking
system because the locks/locking system are incapable of sending the
code needed to disable the device.
    In further support of the reliability of its antitheft device,
Porsche informed the agency that it has developed a new ``off-board''
antitheft strategy to reduce the marketability of stolen electronic
components. Specifically, Porsche stated that during the production of
its vehicle, the initialization and registration of various antitheft
electronic components are recorded in a central database. If the
components have to be repaired or replaced, authorized access to the
database must be obtained to receive authorization for the components.
If authorized access to the central database is unavailable or the
database indicates that the components are not authorized, further
operation and use of the vehicle will be restricted or impossible to
obtain.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Porsche, the agency believes
that the antitheft device for the Panamera vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Porsche has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for the Porsche Panamera vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR Part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
Porsche provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing

operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Porsche's petition for exemption for the Porsche Panamera vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency
notes that 49 CFR Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that
are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year.
49 CFR Part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the
release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for
which the petition is granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement
agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Porsche decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Porsche wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on April 14, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-8951 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P