[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10375-10378]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2216]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the
table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised

flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection
at both the online location and the respective community map repository
address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective
FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through
the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter  of map      Date of modification   Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision                                   No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut: Litchfield.........  Town of Goshen (21-  The Honorable Todd  Town Hall, 42A      https://msc.fema.gov/  May 31, 2022.........       090177
                                   01-1073P).           M. Carusillo,       North Street,       portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        First Selectman,    Goshen, CT 06756.
                                                        Town of Goshen
                                                        Board of
                                                        Selectmen, 42A
                                                        North Street,
                                                        Goshen CT 06756.
Florida:
    Broward.....................  City of Deerfield    Mr. Dave Santucci,  Environmental       https://msc.fema.gov/  May 16, 2022.........       125101
                                   Beach (21-04-        Manager, City of    Services            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   3153P).              Deerfield Beach,    Department, 200
                                                        150 Northeast 2nd   Goolsby
                                                        Avenue, Deerfield   Boulevard,
                                                        Beach, FL 33442.    Deerfield Beach,
                                                                            FL 33442.
    Broward.....................  City of Tamarac (21- The Honorable       Building            https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       120058
                                   04-2763P).           Michelle J.         Department, 7525    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Gomez, Mayor,       Northwest 88th
                                                        City of Tamarac,    Avenue, Tamarac,
                                                        7525 Northwest      FL 33321.
                                                        88th Avenue,
                                                        Tamarac, FL 33321.
    Lake........................  City of Minneola     The Honorable Pat   City Hall, 800      https://msc.fema.gov/  May 31, 2022.........       120412
                                   (21-04-5355P).       Kelley, Mayor,      North U.S.          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Minneola,   Highway 27,
                                                        800 North U.S.      Minneola, FL
                                                        Highway 27,         34755.
                                                        Minneola, FL
                                                        34755.
    Lee.........................  City of Bonita       The Honorable Rick  Community           https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       120680
                                   Springs (21-04-      Steinmeyer,         Development         poral/advanceSearch.
                                   4847P).              Mayor, City of      Department, 9220
                                                        Bonita Springs,     Bonita Beach
                                                        9101 Bonita Beach   Road, Suite 111,
                                                        Road, Bonita        Bonita Springs,
                                                        Springs, FL 34135.  FL 34135.
    Monroe......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Monroe County       https://msc.fema.gov/  May 31, 2022.........       125129
                                   areas of Monroe      Michelle            Building            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Coldiron,           Department, 2798
                                   4119P).              Commissioner,       Overseas Highway,
                                                        Monroe County       Suite 300,
                                                        Board of            Marathon, FL
                                                        Commissioners, 25   33050.
                                                        Ships Way, Big
                                                        Pine Key, FL
                                                        33043.
    Monroe......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Monroe County       https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       125129
                                   areas of Monroe      Michelle            Building            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Coldiron,           Department, 2798
                                   5348P).              Commissioner,       Overseas Highway,
                                                        Monroe County       Suite 300,
                                                        Board of            Marathon, FL
                                                        Commissioners, 25   33050.
                                                        Ships Way, Big
                                                        Pine Key, FL
                                                        33043.

    Pinellas....................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Pinellas County     https://msc.fema.gov/  May 26, 2022.........       125139
                                   areas of Pinellas    David Eggers,       Building            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Chairman,           Department, 22211
                                   4469P).              Pinellas County     U.S. Highway 19
                                                        Board of            North, Building
                                                        Commissioners,      1, 315 Court
                                                        315 Court Street,   Street,
                                                        Clearwater, FL      Clearwater, FL
                                                        33756.              33756.
    Sarasota....................  City of Sarasota     The Honorable Erik  Development         https://msc.fema.gov/  May 26, 2022.........       125150
                                   (21-04-4914P).       Arroyo, Mayor,      Services            portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Sarasota,   Department, 1565
                                                        1565 1st Street,    1st Street,
                                                        Room 101,           Sarasota, FL
                                                        Sarasota, FL        34236.
                                                        34236.
    Sarasota....................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Alan  Sarasota County     https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       125144
                                   areas of Sarasota    Maio, Chairman,     Planning and        portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Sarasota County     Development
                                   4979P).              Board of            Services
                                                        Commissioners,      Department, 1001
                                                        1660 Ringling       Sarasota Center
                                                        Boulevard,          Boulevard,
                                                        Sarasota, FL        Sarasota, FL
                                                        34236.              34240.
    Sumter......................  City of Wildwood     The Honorable Ed    City Hall, 100      https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       120299
                                   (21-04-4694P).       Wolf, Mayor, City   North Main          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        of Wildwood, 100    Street, Wildwood,
                                                        North Main          FL 34785.
                                                        Street, Wildwood,
                                                        FL 34785.
    Sumter......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Gary  Sumter County       https://msc.fema.gov/  May 23, 2022.........       120296
                                   areas of Sumter      Breeden,            Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Chairman, Sumter    Services
                                   4694P).              County Board of     Department, 7375
                                                        Commissioners,      Powell Road,
                                                        7375 Powell Road,   Wildwood, FL
                                                        Wildwood, FL        34785.
                                                        34785.
Georgia:
    Effingham...................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Effingham County    https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 28, 2022........       130076
                                   areas of Effingham   Wesley Corbitt,     Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (20-04-       Chairman at         Services
                                   5821P).              Large, Effingham    Department, 804
                                                        County Board of     South Laurel
                                                        Commissioners,      Street,
                                                        804 South Laurel    Springfield, GA
                                                        Street,             31329.
                                                        Springfield, GA
                                                        31329.
    Muscogee....................  Columbus             The Honorable B.H.  Planning            https://msc.fema.gov/  May 6, 2022..........       135158
                                   Consolidated         ``Skip''            Department, 420     portal/advanceSearch.
                                   Government (21-04-   Henderson III,      10th Street, 2nd
                                   2724P).              Mayor, Columbus     Floor, Columbus,
                                                        Consolidated        GA 31901.
                                                        Government, 100
                                                        10th Street,
                                                        Columbus, GA
                                                        31901.
Kentucky: Hardin................  City of              The Honorable       Stormwater          https://msc.fema.gov/  May 25, 2022.........       210095
                                   Elizabethtown (21-   Jeffrey H.          Management          portal/advanceSearch.
                                   04-1017P).           Gregory, Mayor,     Department, 200
                                                        City of             West Dixie
                                                        Elizabethtown,      Avenue,
                                                        200 West Dixie      Elizabethtown, KY
                                                        Avenue,             42702.
                                                        Elizabethtown, KY
                                                        42702.
Maine: York.....................  Town of York (21-01- The Honorable Todd  Building            https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 28, 2022........       230159
                                   1032P).              A. Frederick,       Department, 186     portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Chairman, Town of   York Street,
                                                        York Board of       York, ME 03909.
                                                        Selectmen, 186
                                                        York Street,
                                                        York, ME 03909.
North Carolina:
    Davie.......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Davie County        https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 15, 2022........       370308
                                   areas of Davie       Terry Renegar,      Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-04-       Chairman, Davie     Services
                                   2539P).              County, Board of    Department, 172
                                                        Commissioners,      Clement Street,
                                                        123 South Main      Mocksville, NC
                                                        Street,             27028.
                                                        Mocksville, NC
                                                        27028.
    Mecklenburg.................  Town of Davidson     The Honorable       Planning            https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 27, 2022........       370503
                                   (21-04-5219P).       Rusty Knox,         Department, 216     portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, Town of      South Main
                                                        Davidson, P.O.      Street, Davidson,
                                                        Box 579,            NC 20836.
                                                        Davidson, NC
                                                        20836.
    Mecklenburg.................  Unincorporated       Ms. Dena R.         Mecklenburg County  https://msc.fema.gov/  Apr. 27, 2022........       370158
                                   areas of             Diorio,             Storm Water         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   Mecklenburg County   Mecklenburg         Services
                                   (21-04-5219P).       County Manager,     Division, 2145
                                                        600 East 4th        Suttle Avenue,
                                                        Street,             Charlotte, NC
                                                        Charlotte, NC       28202.
                                                        28202.
Texas:
    Collin......................  City of Wylie (21-   The Honorable       City Hall, 300      https://msc.fema.gov/  May 9, 2022..........       480759
                                   06-2443P).           Matthew Porter,     Country Club        portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Road, Building
                                                        Wylie, 300          100, Wylie, TX
                                                        Country Club        75098.
                                                        Road, Building
                                                        100, Wylie, TX
                                                        75098.
    Collin......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Collin County       https://msc.fema.gov/  May 9, 2022..........       480130
                                   areas of Collin      Chris Hill,         Engineering         portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (21-06-       Collin County       Department, 4690
                                   2443P).              Judge, 2300         Community Avenue,
                                                        Bloomdale Road,     Suite 22,
                                                        Suite 4192,         McKinney, TX
                                                        McKinney, TX        75071.
                                                        75071.

    Denton......................  Town of Northlake    The Honorable       Town Hall, 1500     https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 6, 2022.........       480782
                                   (21-06-1777P).       David Rettig,       Commons Circle,     portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, Town of      Suite 300,
                                                        Northlake, 1500     Northlake, TX
                                                        Commons Circle,     76226.
                                                        Suite 300,
                                                        Northlake, TX
                                                        76226.
    Johnson.....................  City of Burleson     The Honorable       City Hall, 141      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jun. 2, 2022.........       485459
                                   (21-06-2590P).       Chris Fletcher,     West Renfro         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Street, Burleson,
                                                        Burleson, 141       TX 76028.
                                                        West Renfro
                                                        Street, Burleson,
                                                        TX 76028.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-03856 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67841-67845]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21620]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98529; File No. SR-PEARL-2023-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 2614(f) of the MIAX Pearl Equities Rulebook To Allow Self-Trade
Protection Between Users That Access the Exchange Through a Direct
Connection and Sponsored Access

September 26, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 22, 2023, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2614(f) to permit
individual firms with Users \3\ that access the Exchange through a
direct connection and also access the Exchange through Sponsored Access
to enable Self-Trade Protection (``STP'') modifiers at the firm level
on the Exchange's equity trading platform (referred to herein as ``MIAX
Pearl Equities'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``User'' means any Member or sponsored participant
who is authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to
Exchange Rule 2602. See Exchange Rule 1901.
    \4\ This proposed rule change is based on recent proposed rule
changes by other national securities exchanges that were filed for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii), and Rule 19b-4(f)(6), 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6), thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 98021 (July 28, 2023), 88 FR 51386 (August 3, 2023) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2023-049); 98020 (July 28, 2023), 88 FR 51361 (August 3,
2023) (SR-CboeEDGA-2023-013); 98019 (July 28, 2023), 88 FR 51379
(August 3, 2023) (SR-CboeBYX-2023-012); and 98022 (July 28, 2023),
88 FR 51383 (August 3, 2023) (SR-CboeBZX-2023-054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-equities/pearl-equities/rule-filings, at MIAX Pearl's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2614(f) to permit
individual firms with Users that access the Exchange through a direct
connection and also access the Exchange through Sponsored Access \5\ to
enable STP modifiers at the firm level on MIAX Pearl Equities, if they
choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers optional anti-internalization functionality to
Users in the form of STP modifiers that enable a User to prevent two of
its orders from executing against each other. The Exchange offers the
following four (4) STP modifiers to Equity Members: Cancel Newest,
Cancel Oldest, Decrement and Cancel, and Cancel Both. An order marked
with the Cancel Newest modifier will not execute against a contra-side
order marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique
Identifier (as currently defined) and the order with the most recent
time stamp marked with the Cancel Newest modifier will be cancelled.
The contra-side order with the older timestamp marked with an STP
modifier will remain on the MIAX Pearl Equities Book.\6\ An order
marked with the Cancel Oldest modifier will not execute against a
contra-side order marked with any STP modifier originating from the
same Unique Identifier and the order with the older time stamp marked
with the STP modifier will be cancelled. The contra-side order with the
most recent timestamp marked with the STP modifier will remain on the
MIAX Pearl Equities Book. An order marked with the Decrement and Cancel
modifier will not execute against contra-side interest marked with any
STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. If both
orders are equivalent in size, both orders will be cancelled. If both
orders are not equivalent in size, the equivalent size will be
cancelled and the larger order will be decremented by the size of the
smaller order, with the balance remaining on the MIAX Pearl Equities
Book. Finally, an order marked with the Cancel Both modifier will not
execute against contra-side interest marked with any STP modifier
originating from the same Unique Identifier and the entire size of both
orders will be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Exchange Rule 1901 defines the term ``MIAX Pearl Equities
Book'' as ``the electronic book of orders in equity securities
maintained by the System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Users can set the STP modifier to apply at the market
participant identifier (``MPID''), Exchange Member \7\ identifier,
trading group identifier, or Equity Member Affiliate identifier level
(any such existing identifier, a ``Unique Identifier'').\8\ The STP
modifier on the order with the most recent time stamp controls the
interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers. STP
functionality assists market participants in reducing trading costs
from unwanted executions potentially resulting from the interaction of
executable buy and sell trading interest from the same firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Equity Member'' is a Member authorized by the
Exchange to transact business on MIAX Pearl Equities. See Exchange
Rule 1901.
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 2614(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 2614(f) and enhance its
existing STP functionality by introducing a fifth Unique Identifier,
Multiple Access identifier, which will allow a User to prevent orders
entered via its direct connection from interacting with the User's
orders entered via Sponsored Access. Currently, STP is only available
to individual and affiliated \9\ Users. However, there are certain
situations (discussed infra) in which an individual firm may access the
Exchange through different methods (i.e., through a direct connection
and through Sponsored Access) and therefore desires to enable STP in
order to prevent orders submitted through its direct connection from
interacting with those orders submitted through Sponsored Access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``affiliate'' of or person ``affiliated with''
another person means a person who, directly, or indirectly,
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, such
other person. See Exchange Rule 100. The term ``person'' refers to a
natural person, corporation, partnership (general or limited),
limited liability company, association, joint stock company, trust,
trustee of a trust fund, or any organized group of persons whether
incorporated or not and a government or agency or political
subdivision thereof. Id. See also 17 CFR 230.405. An affiliate of,
or person affiliated with, a specified person, is a person that
directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls
or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person
specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Multiple Access identifier is similar to the affiliate
identifier that is already in place, as it will enable firms that
currently enter orders on the Exchange under two different Unique
Identifiers to assign the same Unique Identifier to orders entered via
its direct connection and to orders entered via Sponsored Access. This
will permit the firm to enable STP and prevent contra side orders from
executing. While the affiliate identifier requires Users to prove that
an affiliate relationship exists between the two Users, the proposed
Multiple Access identifier will only require a User to demonstrate: (i)
it maintains a Membership as an Equity Member on the Exchange through
which it directly submits orders to the System; \10\ and (ii) it also
operates as a pponsored [sic] participant and submits

orders to the System through Sponsored Access. The proposed addition of
the Multiple Access identifier does not present any new or novel STP
functionality, but rather would extend existing STP functionality to
firms that already access the Exchange through multiple formats and
therefore have different Unique Identifiers appended to their
orders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``System'' is the automated trading system used by
the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ See also supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are situations where an individual firm would choose to
submit orders to the Exchange through different mechanisms. For
instance, a firm may employ different trading strategies across
different trading desks and choose to send orders for one strategy to
the Exchange through a direct connection while the other strategy is
sent through Sponsored Access. The proposed functionality would serve
as an additional tool that Users may enable in order to assist with
compliance with the various securities laws relating to potentially
manipulative trading activity such as wash sales \12\ and self-
trades.\13\ Additionally, the proposed functionality would provide
firms an additional solution to manage order flow by preventing
undesirable executions where the firm submits orders in multiple
formats (i.e., direct connection or Sponsored Access). As is the case
with the existing risk tools, Users, and not the Exchange, have full
responsibility for ensuring that their orders comply with applicable
securities rules, laws, and regulations. Furthermore, as is the case
with the existing risk settings, the Exchange does not believe that the
use of the proposed STP functionality can replace User-managed risk
management solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``wash sale'' is generally defined as a trade involving
no change in beneficial ownership that is intended to produce the
false appearance of trading and is strictly prohibited under both
the federal securities laws and FINRA rules. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C
78i(a)(1); FINRA Rule 6140(b) (``Other Trading Practices'').
    \13\ Self-trades are ``transactions in a security resulting from
the unintentional interaction of orders originating from the same
firm that involve no change in beneficial ownership of the
security.'' FINRA requires members to have policies and procedures
in place that are reasonably designed to review trading activity
for, and prevent, a pattern or practice of self-trades resulting
from orders originating from a single algorithm or trading desk, or
related algorithms or trading desks. See FINRA Rule 5210,
Supplementary Material .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to allow firms that submit orders to the
Exchange through both a direct connection and through Sponsored Access
to utilize STP by utilizing the Multiple Access identifier.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to allow individual firms who
choose to access the System through both a direct connection and
through Sponsored Access to use STP functionality in order to prevent
executions from occurring between those separate Users that are
associated with the direct connection and Sponsored Access. When a firm
requests STP using the Multiple Access identifier and the Exchange
confirms that the individual firm is both a Member that accesses the
Exchange through a direct connection and maintains a sponsored
participant relationship on the Exchange, the Exchange will assign an
identical Multiple Access identifier to each User. This Multiple Access
identifier will be used to prevent executions between contra side
orders entered by the Users assigned the same Multiple Access
identifier. The purpose of this proposed change is to extend STP
functionality to separate Users originating from the same individual
firm in order to prevent transactions between the firm's orders
submitted directly to the System and through Sponsored Access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange will require firms requesting to use the
Multiple Access identifier to complete an affidavit stating: (i) it
is currently an Equity Member of the Exchange that submits orders
directly to the System, and (ii) it also submits orders to the
System through a Sponsored Access arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange includes the below examples to demonstrate how STP
will operate with the proposed Multiple Access identifier. For all
examples below, User A represents Firm 1 accessing the System through a
direct connection. User B also represents Firm 1 but where Firm 1 is
accessing the System as a sponsored participant through a Sponsoring
Member.\15\ User A and User B will use a Multiple Access identifier of
``A'' when requesting STP at the Multiple Access level, as both Users
submit Firm 1's orders to the System. User C is not related to Users A
and B and uses a Multiple Access identifier of ``C''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rules 210 and 2602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple Access Level STP
    Scenario 1: User A submits a buy order. User B submits a sell
order. User C also submits a sell order. User A has enabled STP at the
Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User B
has enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A. User C has not enabled STP. User A's buy order is
prevented from executing with User B's sell order as each User has
enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A. User A's buy order will be permitted to execute with
User C's sell order because User C has not enabled STP, depending on
which STP modifier has been chosen by User A.
    Scenario 2: User A submits a buy order. User B submits a sell
order. User C also submits a sell order. User A has enabled STP at the
Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User B
has not enabled STP. User C has enabled STP at the Multiple Access
level using a Multiple Access identifier of C. User A's order will be
eligible to trade with both User B and User C. User A's order is
eligible to trade with User B because User B did not enable STP. In
order for STP to prevent the matching of contra side orders, both the
buy and sell order must contain an STP modifier. User A's order is also
eligible to trade with User C because even though User A and User C
have both enabled STP at the Multiple Access level, User A and User C
have different Multiple Access identifiers.
    Scenario 3: User A submits a buy order and a sell order. User B
submits a buy order. User A has enabled STP at the Multiple Access
level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User B has enabled STP
at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A.
User A's buy order is not eligible to execute with User A's sell order
because User A has enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a
Multiple Access identifier of A. User A's sell order is not eligible to
execute with User B's buy order because both User A and User B have
enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A.
    Scenario 4: User A submits a buy order and a sell order. User B
submits a sell order. User C submits a sell order. User A has enabled
STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of
A. User B has enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple
Access identifier of A. User C has enabled STP at the Multiple Access
level using a Multiple Access identifier of C. User A's buy order is
not eligible to execute with User A's sell order because User A has
enabled STP at the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access
identifier of A. User A's buy order is not eligible to execute with
User B's sell order because both User A and User B have enabled STP at
the Multiple Access level using a Multiple Access identifier of A. User
A's buy order is eligible to execute with User C's sell order because
while User A and User C have enabled STP at the Multiple Access level,
User A and User C have been assigned different Multiple Access
identifiers.
    This proposed rule change is designed to provide additional
flexibility to Equity Members in how they implement

self-trade prevention, and thereby better manage their order flow and
prevent undesirable executions or the potential for ``wash sales'' that
may occur as a result of the speed of trading in today's marketplace.
Based on informal discussions with Equity Members, the Exchange
believes that the proposed amendments will be useful to Equity Members
in implementing their own compliance controls. Furthermore, the
additional STP functionality may assist Members in complying with
certain rules and regulations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/or limit managing broker-
dealers of such accounts from trading as principal with orders
generated for those accounts.
    The Exchange notes that, as with the current anti-internalization
functionality offered by the Exchange, use of the proposed new Multiple
Access identifier STP grouping will not alleviate, or otherwise exempt,
Equity Members from their best execution obligations. As such, Equity
Members and their Affiliates using STP will continue to be obligated to
take appropriate steps to ensure customer orders which were prevented
from execution due to anti-internalization ultimately receive the same
price, or a better price, than they would have received had execution
of the orders not been inhibited by anti-internalization. Further, as
with current rule provisions, Market Makers and other Users may not use
STP functionality to evade the firm quote obligation, as specified in
Exchange Rule 2606(b), and the STP functionality must be used in a
manner consistent with just and equitable principles of trade.\16\ For
these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed new Equity Member
Affiliate level of STP grouping offers Equity Members enhanced order
processing functionality that may prevent potentially undesirable
executions without negatively impacting broker-dealer best execution
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Rule 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange will issue a trading alert publicly announcing the
implementation date of this proposed rule change to provide Equity
Members with adequate time to prepare for the associated technological
changes. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation date will be
in the fourth quarter of 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\18\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because allowing Users that access the Exchange through a direct
connection and also access the Exchange through Sponsored Access to be
part of the same STP group will provide Equity Members with additional
flexibility with respect to how they implement self-trade protections
provided by the Exchange that may better support their trading
strategies and compliance controls. Equity Members that prefer the
current anti-internalization groupings offered by the Exchange can
continue to use them without any modification.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple
Access level STP functionality promotes just and equitable principles
of trade by allowing individual firms to better manage order flow and
prevent undesirable trading activity such as wash sales or self- trades
that may occur as a result of the velocity of trading in today's high-
speed marketplace. The proposed Multiple Access identifier and
description of eligibility to utilize the proposed Multiple Access
identifier does not introduce any new or novel functionality, as the
proposed amendment does not seek to change the underlying STP
functionality, but merely extends the current STP functionality to
another trading relationship. For instance, a User may operate trading
desk 1 that accesses the Exchange via the User's direct connection, as
well as trading desk 2 that accesses the Exchange as a sponsored
participant. While these desks may operate different trading
strategies, a User may desire to prevent these desks from trading
versus each other in the marketplace because the orders are originating
from the same entity. Here, Users may desire STP functionality on a
Multiple Access level that will help them avoid unintended executions
to achieve compliance \20\ with regulatory rules regarding wash sales
and self-trades in a very similar manner to the way that the current
STP functionality applies on the existing Unique Identifier level. In
this regard, the proposed Multiple Access level STP functionality will
permit individual firms associated with different Users for purposes of
submitting orders to the Exchange in a different manner to prevent the
execution of transactions by and between the Users. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change is fair and equitable and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination as use of the proposed STP
functionality is available to all Users that meet the criteria and is
optional, and its use is not a prerequisite for trading on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange reminds Users that while they may utilize STP
to help prevent potential transactions such as wash sales or self-
trades, Users, not the Exchange, are ultimately responsible for
ensuring that their orders comply with applicable rules, laws, and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes other equity exchanges recently amended
their rules to allow similar groupings for their own anti-
internalization functionality.\21\ Consequently, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change raises any new or novel issues
not already considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. STP is an optional
functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are free to decide
whether to use STP in their decision-making process when submitting
orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple Access identifier
does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as it seeks to
enhance an existing functionality available to all Users. The Exchange
is not proposing to introduce any new or novel functionality, but
rather is proposing to provide an extension of its existing STP
functionality to individual firms who choose to access the System

through both a direct connection and through Sponsored Access.
Additionally, the proposed rule specifies which Users are eligible to
use the Multiple Access identifier and will be available to any User
who satisfies such criteria. STP will continue to be an optional
functionality offered by the Exchange and the addition of Multiple
Access level STP will not change how the current Unique Identifiers and
STP functionality operate.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Multiple Access identifier
does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition. STP is an
optional functionality offered by the Exchange and Users are not
required to use STP functionality when submitting orders to the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange is not required to offer STP and is
choosing to do so as a benefit for Users who wish to enable STP
functionality. Moreover, the proposed change is not being submitted for
competitive reasons, but rather to provide Users enhanced order
processing functionality that may prevent undesirable executions by
affiliated Users such as wash sales or self-trades. Nonetheless, the
proposed rule change would also improve the Exchange's ability to
compete with other exchanges that recently amended their rules to allow
Multiple Access identifier grouping for their own anti-internalization
functionality.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \23\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of 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) \25\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \26\ permits the Commission to
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. Waiver of the 30-day
operative delay will allow the Exchange to immediately offer individual
firms with Users that access the Exchange through a direct connection
and through Sponsored Access functionality to better manage order flow
and prevent undesirable executions, to help ensure compliance with
securities laws relating to potentially manipulative trading activity
such as wash sales and self-trades. Further, the Commission notes that
this proposed rule change would permit functionality on the Exchange
currently available on other exchanges \27\ and as such, does not raise
any novel legal or regulatory issues. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \27\ See supra note 4.
    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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. 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-PEARL-2023-48 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-PEARL-2023-48. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-PEARL-2023-48 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21620 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42195-42199]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18798]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81504; File No. SR-BOX-2017-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees and Rebates for the Trading Floor on the BOX Market LLC
(``BOX'') Options Facility

August 30, 2017.
    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 21, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
establish fees and rebates for the Trading Floor on the BOX Market LLC
(``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant
to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become
operative on August 22, 2017. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to create a new fee and rebate structure for manual transactions
initiated from the BOX Trading Floor. The Exchange recently adopted
rules to allow for an open outcry Trading Floor.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 81292 (August 2, 2017),
82 FR 37144 (August 8, 2017)(Order Approving SR-BOX-2016-48 as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented in its filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') to establish the
Trading Floor that, ``the Exchange has not yet determined the fees for
transactions executed on the Trading Floor. Prior to commencing trading
on the Trading Floor, the Exchange will file proposed fees with the
Commission.'' \6\ As the Exchange intends to begin trading on the
Trading Floor on August 22, 2017, it is submitting this filing to
describe the fees that will be applicable to transactions presented on
the Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I. Exchange Fees
    The Exchange proposes to amend the language to the title of Section
I. to differentiate between electronic transaction fees and manual
transaction fees. Currently, the Exchange assesses Exchange Fees based
on transaction types and account types. The Exchange proposes to add
``Electronic Transaction'' and remove ``Exchange'' to the title of
Section I to distinguish that Section I fees only apply to transactions
that are initiated electronically through

the Trading Host as opposed to transactions initiated and presented on
the Trading Floor in open outcry (manual transactions).\7\ The Exchange
also proposes to clarify that a Participant's electronic and manual
transaction volume will be considered for purposes of calculating the
volume thresholds within the fee schedule, including the Tiered Volume
Rebates for Non-Auction Transactions (Section I.A.1), Primary
Improvement Order fees (Section 1.B.1), and BOX Volume Rebate (Section
I.B.2). Further, the Exchange proposes to make changes throughout the
Fee Schedule to distinguish between electronic transaction and manual
transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See BOX Rule 100(a)(66). Electronic transactions are those
initiated electronically, as opposed to transactions initiated and
presented on the Trading Floor in open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section II. Manual Transaction Fees
    The Exchange then proposes to adopt a new section (Section II.
Manual Transaction Fees) and renumber the subsequent sections
accordingly. As discussed above, manual transactions are transactions
initiated and presented on the Trading Floor in open outcry, as opposed
to those initiated electronically. Manual transactions consist of
Qualified Open Outcry (``QOO'') Orders.\8\ A QOO Order must be entered
as a two-sided order, an initiating side and a contra-side, and the QOO
Order fees, rebates and applicable fee and rebate caps will apply to
both sides of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BOX Rule 7600. The QOO Order must be entered as a two-
sided order when it is submitted to the Exchange for execution
through the BOX Order Gateway (``BOG'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the fees assessed for electronic transactions, the
Exchange proposes to assess fees for manual transactions based on
account type. For Public Customers, the Exchange proposes to assess a
$0.00 per contract fee for manual transactions in Penny and Non-Penny
Pilot Classes. For Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.25 per contract fee for
manual transactions in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot classes.
    The Exchange proposes to add an additional account type, Broker
Dealer Facilitating a Public Customer, which will apply to any manual
transaction executed using the open outcry process, where the Broker
Dealer and the Public Customer both clear through the same clearing
firm and the Broker Dealer clears in the customer range. The Exchange
proposes to assess a $0.00 per contract fee for Broker Dealers
Facilitating a Public Customer in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
For example, if a Floor Broker presents a QOO Order on the Trading
Floor where the initiating side is a Public Customer and the contra
side is the Broker Dealer guaranteeing the full size of the order, the
Public Customer will be assessed a $0.00 per contract fee on the
initiating side and the Broker Dealer will be assessed a $0.00 per
contract fee for the contra-side.
    The Exchange then proposes to establish a QOO Order fee cap for
Broker Dealers of $75,000 per month per Broker Dealer. Again, the
Exchange notes that both sides of the paired QOO Order will count
towards reaching the fee cap for each Broker Dealer.
    The Exchange then proposes to add Section II.B., QOO Orders
Executed Against Orders on the BOX Book. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes that the initiating side of a QOO Order executing against an
order on the BOX Book will be treated as a manual transaction for
purposes of the Fee Schedule and will be subject to the fees and
rebates in proposed Section II (Manual Transaction Fees). The
corresponding order on the BOX Book will be treated as an electronic
transaction and continue to be subject to the fees in Section I
(Electronic Transaction Fees).
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Section II.C., QOO Order Rebate. BOX
Floor Brokers will receive a $0.05 per contract rebate for all QOO
Orders presented to the Trading Floor for both sides of the QOO Order.
However, the rebate will not apply to Public Customer manual
executions; or Broker Dealer manual executions where the Broker Dealer
is facilitating a Public Customer. The total monthly rebate for Broker
Dealer executions will be capped at $30,000 per month per Broker
Dealer.
    For example, Broker Dealer A submits a 200 contract buy order to a
Floor Broker B, and the Floor Broker B pairs that initiating order with
Broker Dealer C's 200 contract sell order to create a QOO Order that
will be presented on the Trading Floor in open outcry. During open
outcry, Floor Broker D offers to sell 50 contracts on behalf of Broker
Dealer E. The 200 contract QOO Order is then submitted to the Exchange
for execution through the BOG.
    Following the allocation of the initiating side of the QOO Order:
     Broker Dealer A would be assessed a $0.25 fee and Floor
Broker B would receive a $0.05 rebate on the initiating 200 contracts.
     Broker Dealer C would be assessed a $0.25 fee and Floor
Broker B would receive a $0.05 rebate on its 150 contra side contracts
that receive allocation.
     Broker Dealer E would be assessed a $0.25 fee and Floor
Broker D would receive a $0.05 rebate on its 50 contra side contracts
that received allocation.
    To continue on this example, if Floor Broker D offered to sell 50
contracts on behalf of Public Customer F instead of Broker Dealer E.
Public Customer F would be assessed no fees and Floor Broker D would
receive no rebates on its 50 contra side contracts that received
allocation. On a monthly basis, these QOO Order fees for Broker Dealer
A, Broker Dealer C, and Broker Dealer E would each be capped at
$75,000; and the QOO Order Rebate for Floor Brokers B and D would be
capped at $30,000 per Broker Dealer.
Proposed Section IV. Complex Order Transaction Fees
    The Exchange proposes to amend proposed Section IV (Complex Order
Transaction Fees) to clarify that transaction fees and credits set
forth in this section will not apply to (i) Complex Order Electronic
transactions executed through the Auction Mechanisms \9\ which will be
subject to Sections I (Electronic Transaction Fees) and proposed
Section III (Liquidity Fees and Credits) and (ii) Complex Order Manual
Transactions which will be subject to proposed Section II (Manual
Transaction Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BOX's auction mechanisms include the Price Improvement
Period (``PIP''), Complex Order Price Improvement Period
(``COPIP''), Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Section IX. Participant Fees
    The Exchange proposes to establish distinct Participant fees for
its Floor Participants. The proposed Floor Participant Permit fees will
be in addition to the Participant Fees already in place; a one-time
$2,500 Initiation Fee, and a monthly $1,500 Participant Fee. The
Exchange proposes to establish a Floor Market Maker fee of $5,500 per
month, a Floor Broker fee of $500 per month and a Badge fee of $100 per
month.\10\ The Exchange notes that the Floor Market Maker fee and Floor
Broker fee entitles the Participant to three registered permits on the
BOX Trading Floor. Further, Badge fees will be paid by each Participant
(Floor Market Maker or Floor Broker) for any

registered on-floor person employed by or associated with the
Participant. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the Badge fee is not
imposed on permit holders. The Exchange believes these Floor
Participant Fees are competitive with similar fees at other option
exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Floor Market Maker is an Options Participant of the
Exchange located on the Trading Floor who has received permission
from the Exchange to trade in options for his own account. A Floor
Broker is an individual who is registered with the Exchange for the
purpose, while on the Trading Floor, of accepting and handling
options orders. A Floor Broker must be registered as an Options
Participant prior to registering as a Floor Broker. The Exchange
notes that the Floor Market Maker fee and the Floor Broker Dealer
fee will be paid by the Floor Market Maker or Floor Broker Dealer
entities, respectively.
    \11\ For similar Trading Floor Permits for Floor Market Makers,
Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') charges $5,000; NASDAQ
PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') charges $4,500; NYSE Arca (``Arca'') charges up
to $6,000; and NYSE American (``American'') charges up to $10,000.
For Floor Brokers, CBOE charges $9,000 per month; PHLX charges
$3,000 per month; Arca charges $500 per month; and American charges
$500 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make a number of non-substantive
changes to the Fee Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to renumber
the footnotes throughout the Fee Schedule. Second, the Exchange
proposes to amend Section III (Complex Order Transaction Fees) with
regard to Market Maker executed volume on BOX. Currently, the Fee
Schedule states, ``All Complex Order transactions will count toward a
Market Maker's monthly executed volume on BOX in Section I.B.'' The
Exchange proposes to correct the reference to Section I.A.1, as Section
I.B is not accurate. Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend proposed
Section III (Liquidity Fees and Credits) to clarify that a PIP Order or
COPIP Order that executes against an Unrelated on the BOX Book shall be
treated as a Non-Auction Transaction and deemed exempt from the
Liquidity Fees and Credits in Section III.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manual Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for Manual Transactions on
the Trading Floor are reasonable. Furthermore, several other competing
exchanges have open outcry trading floors and market participants can
readily direct order flow to any these venues if they deem BOX's manual
transaction fees to be excessive.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See CBOE Fee Schedule; PHLX Pricing Schedule; Arca Options
Fees and Charges; and American Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the $0.25 fee for Professional Customer,
Broker Dealer, and Market Maker QOO Orders is reasonable. The proposed
fees for these Manual transactions have been designed to be comparable
to the fees that such orders would be charged at competing venues.\14\
Further, the Exchange believes that charging Professionals, Broker
Dealers and Market Makers the same fee for all Manual Transactions is
not unfairly discriminatory as the fees for QOO Orders are the same for
Professionals, Broker Dealers and Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For manual transactions, CBOE charges Broker Dealers $0.25
and charges Market Makers between $0.23 and $0.03, depending on
their volume thresholds based on total national Market Maker volume.
CBOE does not charge public customers for manual transactions. On
Phlx, Broker Dealers and Professionals are charged $0.25 for floor
transactions while Market Makers are charged $0.35. Similar to CBOE,
Phlx does not charge public customers for their floor transactions.
On Arca, Broker Dealers, Professional Customers and Market Makers
are charged $0.25 for their manual executions, while public
customers are not charged. Lastly, on American for manual
transactions, Broker Dealers and Professional Customers are charged
$0.25, Market Makers are charged $0.20, and public customers are not
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory that Public Customers be charged lower fees for Manual
transactions than Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers on BOX. The securities markets generally, and BOX in particular,
have historically aimed to improve markets for investors and develop
various features within the market structure for customer benefit. As
such, the Exchange believes that not assessing a fee for Public
Customer Manual transactions are appropriate, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it promotes the best
interests of investors to have lower transaction costs for Public
Customers, and having no fee for QOO Orders will attract Public
Customer order flow to the BOX Trading Floor.
    The Exchange believes that not charging a Broker Dealer
facilitating a Public Customer is reasonable because it will encourage
Broker Dealers to facilitate Public Customer orders through the Trading
Floor and increase participation in open outcry, which will in turn
promote increased executions on the Exchange which will benefit all BOX
Participants. As stated above, BOX's market model and fees are
generally intended to benefit retail customers by providing incentives
for Participants to submit their customer order flow to BOX.\15\
Further, the Exchange believes this proposal is reasonable and
appropriate; as it is in line other exchanges with open outcry trading
floors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BOX Fee Schedule, current Section II.A. (Liquidity Fees
and Credits for PIP and COPIP Transactions.)
    \16\ See NYSE Arca Fee Schedule. Arca does not charge fees for
manual executions for Firm Facilitation and Broker Dealers
facilitating a Customer. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it is
proposing a similar definition for ``Broker Dealers facilitating a
Customer'' as defined in Arca's Fee Schedule. See also NASDAQ PHLX
LLC (``PHLX'') Fee Schedule. PHLX does not charge fees for a
transaction in which a Broker-Dealer facilitates a Customer order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is open to all Broker Dealers on an equal
basis. Further, the BOX Trading Floor will provide the opportunity for
all market participants to compete for these customer orders, as there
are no limitations regarding the number of Market Makers or Floor
Brokers that can participate and compete for a QOO Order in open
outcry.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed difference between
what a Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer will pay, compared
to what a responder to the QOO Order will pay is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. As stated above, this difference is
in-line with the credits and fees at competing exchanges. The Exchange
believes that this differential is reasonable because responders are
willing to pay a higher fee for liquidity discovery. Further, the
Broker Dealer is guaranteeing the execution when submitting the QOO
Order to floor, compared to the other Floor Participants who have no
obligation to respond.
    The Exchange believes that the QOO Order fee cap for Broker Dealers
is reasonable and appropriate. The proposed fee cap of $75,000 per
month per Broker Dealer is the same amount as another fee cap at a
competing exchange with an open outcry trading floor.\17\ Further, the
Exchange believes that this proposed fee cap is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it provides incentives for Broker
Dealers to submit floor transactions on the Exchange, which brings
increased liquidity and order flow to the floor for the benefit of all
market participants. Lastly, the Exchange believes that applying this
fee cap to only Broker Dealers is reasonable and appropriate as another
exchange in the industry has a similar cap.\18\ The Exchange believes

that to attract orders from Broker Dealers, via a Floor Broker, the
rates must be competitive with rates at other trading floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Phlx Pricing Schedule. Phlx subjects Firms to a maximum
fee of $75,000 per month for floor transactions.
    \18\ See American Fee Schedule Section I.I (Firm Month Fee Cap).
American has a monthly Firm Fee Cap for Manual transactions of
$100,000. Firms are defined as ``a Broker Dealer that is not
registered as a dealer-specialist or Market Maker that is an ATP
Holder on the Exchange.'' The Exchange notes that American has in
place a $0.01 incremental service fee that is applied once a Firm
has reached the monthly cap. The Exchange is not proposing a similar
service fee at this time. See also Arca Fee Schedule (Firm and
Broker Dealer Monthly Fee Cap).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that applying the cap to only Broker
Dealers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to Public
Customers and Broker Dealers facilitating a Public Customer because
these Participants are not charged any fees for their manual
transactions. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to not apply a fee cap on Floor Market
Maker manual transactions. Market Makers do not need the same
incentives as Broker Dealers to submit order flow to the BOX Trading
Floor. Broker Dealers require a Floor Broker to represent their trading
interest on the Trading Floor as compared to a Market Maker that could
directly transact such orders on the Trading Floor.
QOO Order Rebate
    The Exchange believes that the proposed $0.05 QOO Order Rebate for
Floor Brokers is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange notes that it does not offer a front-end for order entry
on the Trading Floor, unlike some competing exchanges. As such, the
Exchange believes it is necessary from a competitive standpoint to
offer this rebate to the executing Floor Broker on a QOO order. A
similar flat rebate is offered to Floor Brokers on a competing
exchange.\19\ Similar to the Floor Broker Rebate for Executed QCC
Transactions, the proposed QOO Order rebate is applied to both sides of
the paired order and is directed to the Floor Broker and not to the
Participant who is assessed the QOO Order fee. In other words, the NYSE
Floor Broker Rebate is applied to the Floor Broker who executes the QCC
Order for another NYSE Member, even though that Member is assessed the
$0.20 fee per contract. Finally, the rebate is only applied when the
Floor Broker executes the QCC Order manually on the NYSE Arca trading
floor. No rebate is given when the QCC Order is executed
electronically.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca, Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
Transactions Fees and Rebate. The Floor Broker Rebate for Executed
Orders is a flat rebate and is applied to both sides of the QCC
Order except when a Customer is on both sides of the QCC
transaction.
    \20\ BOX notes that while QCC Orders are also offered on the
Exchange, only QOO Orders are allowed to be presented to the BOX
Trading Floor for open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Participants have two possible means of
bringing orders to the Exchange's Trading Floor for possible execution:
(1) They can invest in the technology, systems and personnel to
participate on the Trading Floor and deliver the order to the Exchange
matching engines for validation and execution; or (2) they can utilize
the services of another Participant acting as a Floor Broker. The
Exchange believes that offering the rebate will allow Floor Brokers to
price their services at a level that would enable them to attract QOO
order flow from participants who would otherwise utilize the front-end
order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of
incurring the cost in time and resources to install and develop their
own internal systems to deliver QOO orders directly to the Exchange
system.
    Further, the Exchange believes that to the extent Floor Brokers are
able to attract QOO orders; they will gain important information that
would allow them to solicit the parties to the QOO orders for
participation in other trades. This will in turn, benefit other
Exchange participants through additional liquidity on the Trading Floor
that could occur as a result.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only apply the rebate to Floor Brokers and not to
Floor Market Makers. As stated above, Floor Market Makers only
represent their own interest on the Trading Floor and therefore do not
need a similar incentive. Further, the Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not apply the rebate to
Public Customers or Broker Dealers where the Broker Dealer is
facilitating a Public Customer, as these executions are not assessed a
fee for their QOO Orders. The Exchange also believes that the $30,000
rebate cap for Broker Dealer executions is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as Broker Dealer QOO Order execution fees are capped at
$75,000 per month and other QOO Order fees are not.
QOO Orders Executed on the BOX Book
    The Exchange believes that treating the initiating side of the QOO
Order that executes against an order on the BOX Book as a manual
transaction for purposes of the Fee Schedule and subject to Section II
(Manual Transaction Fees), and treating the corresponding order on the
BOX Book as an electronic transaction subject to Section I (Electronic
Transaction Fees) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. For example, the Exchange believes this proposal is
reasonable and appropriate as it has adopted a similar methodology for
Complex Orders that execute against orders on the BOX Book.\21\
Further, the Exchange believes that this proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory as it will reduce investor confusion
with respect to the applicable QOO Order fees and rebates. Further, the
Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with what a
Participant submitting an order on the Trading Floor would expect to
pay, which will allow the Participant to more accurately forecast their
floor based transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 77568 (April 8, 2016),
81 FR 22151 (April 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Order Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Proposed Section
IV (Complex Order Transaction Fees) are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as the changes are simply clarifying how Manual
Complex Orders on the Trading Floor will be charged or credited as
opposed to electronic Complex Orders. The Exchange notes that the
Exchange currently differentiates between Complex Orders executed on
the Exchange versus Complex Orders executed within BOX's Auction
Mechanisms. The Exchange is simply clarifying that Manual Complex
Orders presented on the Trading Floor will be subject to a different
section of the BOX Fee Schedule, specifically proposed Section II
(Manual Transaction Fees).
Participant Fees
    The Exchange's proposed Trading Floor Permit fees of $5,500 per
month for Floor Market Makers, $500 per month for Floor Brokers and
$100 per month for any Badge Fees are reasonable and appropriate.
Specifically, the proposed fees are competitive with similar
participant fees at other options exchanges with open outcry trading
floors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge Floor Market Makers more per month than Floor
Brokers. Floor Market Makers benefit from the access they have to
interact with orders which are made available in open outcry on the
Trading Floor. As

stated above, these market participants may choose to conduct their
business on the Trading Floor, unlike Floor Brokers, who have a
business model that is naturally tied to the physical trading space.
The Exchange offers Market Makers a choice on how to conduct business,
only electronic or floor and electronic. The Exchange believes that it
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess Floor Market
Makers the higher monthly fee because they have the benefit of trading
on both if they so choose.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes the monthly Badge Fee of $100 is
reasonable as it is in line with other similar fees at a competing
exchange.\23\ Further, the Exchange believes that the monthly Badge Fee
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Badge Fee will
be assessed uniformly to each person authorized by the BOX Participant,
regardless of Participant type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See CBOE Fees Schedule and NYSE Arca Fee Schedule. CBOE
charges a $120 (Floor Manager) or $60 (Clerks) badge fees for their
Floor Participants. NYSE Arca charges $50 per badge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange 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. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in
this market may impose any burden on competition is limited. For the
reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes do not impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange does not believe that assessing no fee on Broker
Dealers facilitating Public Customer will burden competition by
creating such a disparity between the fees that an initiating Broker
Dealer pays and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result
in certain Participants being unable to compete with initiators. In
fact, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will not impair
these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in open outcry
on the Trading Floor and will help promote competition by providing
incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to the
BOX Trading Floor and thus, create a greater opportunity for customer
executions.
    Further, the Exchange does not believe that offering a rebate to
Floor Brokers will impose an undue burned [sic] on intra-market
competition because all Floor Brokers are eligible to transaction [sic]
QOO Orders and receive a rebate. Further, the Exchange believes that
the rebate will promote competition by allowing Floor Brokers to
competitively price their services and for the Exchange to remain
competitive with other exchanges that offer front-end order entry on
their trading floors.

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 Exchange Act \24\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\25\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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-BOX-2017-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-28, and should be
submitted on or before September 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18798 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17969-17970]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7528-009]

Public Service Company of New Hampshire; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

March 26, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the 1.1-megawatt
Canaan Project, located on the Connecticut River, in Coos County, New
Hampshire, and Essex County, Vermont, and has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyze the potential
environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude that
issuing a subsequent license for the project, with appropriate
environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

    Comments on the EA should be filed within 30 days from the issuance
date of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Canaan Project No. 7528-009'' to
all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact
Kristen Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6722 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 73995]
[DOCID:fr14de05-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-220-020]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of
Negotiated Rate Agreement

December 8, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 2, 2005, Great Lakes Gas Transmission
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a
transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule
FT entered into by Great Lakes and NJR Energy Services Company (NJR)
(FT Service Agreement). Great Lakes states that the FT Service
Agreement being filed reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between
Great Lakes and NJR commencing December 1, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7321 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P