[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19304-19307]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0126]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port
Detroit Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishment of safety zones for
annual events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. This proposed
rule adds events not previously published in Coast Guard regulations.
These safety zones are necessary to protect spectators, participants,
and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0126 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Matt Merriman, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard

Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207; (313) 568-
9508, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking USCG-2010-0126, indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert USCG-2010-0126, in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert USCG-2010-0126, and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    This proposed rule will add additional events not previously
published in the regulations found in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones;
Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone. These
safety zones are necessary to protect vessels and people from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays. Such hazards include
obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties and the
explosive danger of fireworks and debris falling into the water that
may cause death or serious bodily harm.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule and associated safety zones are necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual firework events
in the Captain of the Port Detroit area of responsibility.
    The proposed safety zones will be enforced only immediately before,
during, and after events that pose hazard to the public, and only upon
notice by the Captain of the Port.
    The Captain of the Port Detroit will notify the public that that
the zones in this proposal are or will be enforced by all appropriate
means to the affected segments of the public including publication in
the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR
165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not
limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone established by
this section is cancelled.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative. Entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated
representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    The Coast Guard expects the final rule will be effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register because delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the public interest due to the need
to protect the public from the dangers associated with fireworks
displays.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    The Coast Guard's use of these safety zones will be periodic, of
short duration, and designed to minimize the impact on navigable
waters. These safety zones will only be enforced

immediately before, during, and after the time the events occur.
Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to
transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the
safety zones. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to
mariners from the activation of these safety zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the areas designated as safety zones
in subparagraphs (50) through (56) during the dates and times the
safety zones are being enforced.
    These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
proposed rule would be in effect for short periods of time, and only
once per year, per zone. The safety zones have been designed to allow
traffic to pass safely around the zone whenever possible and vessels
will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission of the
Captain of the Port.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander Matt
Merriman, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. We
invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact Tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``Tribal
implication'' under the Order.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing safety zones around fireworks displays and
is therefore expected to be categorically excluded, under section
2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of the Instruction. Comments on
this section will be considered before we make the final decision on
whether this proposed rule should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review. We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  165.941 by adding new paragraphs (a)(50) through
(a)(56) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.941  Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of
the Port Detroit Zone.

    (a) * * *
    (50) Celebrate America Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI:
    (i) Location: All waters of Lake St. Clair within a 500-foot radius
of the fireworks launch site located at position 42[deg]22'58'' N,
082[deg]53'46'' W. (NAD 83). This area is located southeast of the
Grosse Point Yacht Club.
    (ii) Expected date: One evening during the third week in June. The
exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (51) Target Fireworks, Detroit, MI:
    (i) Location: The following three areas are safety zones:
    (A) The first safety zone area will encompass all waters of the
Detroit River bounded by the arc of a circle with a 900-foot radius
with its center in position 42[deg]19'23'' N, 083[deg]04'34'' W.
    (B) The second safety zone area will encompass a portion of the
Detroit River bounded on the South by the International Boundary line,
on the West by 83[deg]03'30'' W, on the North by the City of Detroit
shoreline and on the East by 083[deg]01'15'' W.
    (C) The third safety zone will encompass a portion of the Detroit
River bounded on the South by the International Boundary line, on the
West by the Ambassador Bridge, on the North by the City of Detroit
shoreline, and on the East by the downstream end of Belle Isle. The
Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that vessels below 65 feet
in length may enter this zone.
    (ii) Expected date: One evening during the last week in June. The
exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (52) Sigma Gamma Association Fireworks, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI:
    (i) Location: All waters of Lake St. Clair, within a 300-yard
radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 42[deg]27' N,
082[deg]52' W (NAD 83) This position is located in the vicinity of
Ford's Cove.
    (ii) Expected date: One evening during the last week in June. The
exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (53) Southside Summer Fireworks, Port Huron, MI:
    (i) Location: All waters of St. Clair River within a 300 yard
radius of position 42[deg]57'55'' N, 082[deg]25'20'' W. This position
is located on the shore of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Oak
and 3rd Street, Port Huron, MI. All geographic coordinates are North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (ii) Expected date: One evening during the last week in June. The
exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (54) Bay City Fireworks Festival, Bay City, MI:
    (i) Location: All waters of the Saginaw River near Bay City, MI,
from the Veteran's Memorial Bridge, located at position 43[deg]35.8' N;
083[deg]53.6' W, south approximately 1000 yards to the River Walk Pier,
located at position 43[deg]35.3' N; 083[deg]53.8' W. All geographic
coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (ii) Expected date: Three evenings during the first week in July.
The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (55) Toledo 4th of July Fireworks, Toledo, OH:
    (i) Location: All waters of the Maumee River within a 300-yard
radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]38'35''
N, 083[deg]31'54'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (ii) Expected date: One evening during the first week in July. The
exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
    (56) Toledo Labor Day Fireworks, Toledo, OH:
    (i) Location: All waters of the Maumee River within a 300-yard
radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]38'35''
N, 083[deg]31'54'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (ii) Expected Date: One evening during the first week in September.
The exact dates and times for this event will be determined annually.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 31, 2010.
F.M. Midgette,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2010-8477 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 15641]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07638]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 18, 2019.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Roisman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 11, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07638 Filed 4-12-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88191-88193]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27927]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99186; File No. SR-Phlx-2023-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 9

December 14, 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 December 5, 2023, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules at Options 7, Section 9,
Other Member Fees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed pricing changes on
November 28, 2023 (SR-Phlx-2023-52). On December 5, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 7, Section 9, B, Port Fees,
to increase the SQF Port \4\ Fee cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Specialized Quote Feed'' or ``SQF'' is an interface that
allows Lead Market Makers, Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') and
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') to connect, send, and
receive messages related to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and
auction responses into and from the Exchange. Features include the
following: (1) options symbol directory messages (e.g., underlying
and complex instruments); (2) system event messages (e.g., start of
trading hours messages and start of opening); (3) trading action
messages (e.g., halts and resumes); (4) execution messages; (5)
quote messages; (6) Immediate-or-Cancel Order messages; (7) risk
protection triggers and purge notifications; (8) opening imbalance
messages; (9) auction notifications; and (10) auction responses. The
SQF Purge Interface only receives and notifies of purge requests
from the Lead Market Maker, SQT or RSQT. Lead Market Makers, SQTs
and RSQTs may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned options
series. Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered into SQF are not subject
to the Order Price Protection, the Market Order Spread Protection,
or Size Limitation in Options 3, Section 15(a)(1), (a)(2) and
(b)(2), respectively. See Options 3, Section 7(a)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Phlx assesses $1,250 per port, per month up to a maximum of
$42,000 per month for an SQF Port that receives inbound quotes at any
time within that month.\5\ Today, member organizations are not assessed
an active SQF Port Fee for additional ports acquired for ten business
days for the purpose of transitioning technology.\6\ The Exchange
proposes to add the words ``active port'' in parenthesis at the end of
the description of SQF Port Fee to tie the definition of an active port
to the description for the port.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An active port shall mean that the port was utilized to
submit a quote to the System during a given month. See Options 7,
Section 9, B.
    \6\ The member organization is required to provide the Exchange
with written notification of the transition and all additional
ports, provided at no cost, will be removed at the end of the ten
business days. See Options 7, Section 9, B.
    \7\ The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to add a
comma between ``per port'' and ``per month'' for the SQF Port Fee in
Options 7, Section 9, B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange proposes to increase the maximum SQF
Port Fee of $42,000 per month to $50,000 per month. The Exchange is not
amending the $1,250 per port, per month fee. As is the case today, the
Exchange would not assess a member organization an SQF Port Fee beyond
the monthly cap once the member organization has exceeded the monthly
cap for the respective month. Despite increasing the maximum SQF Port
Fee from $42,000 per month to $50,000 per month, the Exchange will
continue to offer member organizations the opportunity to cap their SQF
Port Fees so that they would not be assessed these fees beyond the cap.
A Phlx Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its
assigned options series into Phlx. A Phlx Market Maker may submit all
quotes through one SQF Port. While a Phlx Market Maker may elect to
obtain multiple SQF Ports to organize its business,\8\ only one SQF
Port is necessary for a Phlx Market Maker to fulfill its regulatory
quoting obligations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, a Phlx Market Maker may desire to utilize
multiple SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance,
for regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to
that member organization.
    \9\ Phlx Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, Phlx Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. SQF
Ports are the only quoting protocol available on Phlx and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pricing change to increase the maximum SQF Port Fee is
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution';

[and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for
granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or
otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do
shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.
    The proposed pricing change to increase the maximum SQF Port Fee
from $42,000 to $50,000 per month is reasonable because despite the
increase in the maximum SQF Port Fee, the Exchange will continue to
offer member organizations the opportunity to cap their SQF Port Fees
so that they would not be assessed SQF Port Fees beyond the cap.
Additionally, a Phlx Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit
quotes in its assigned options series into Phlx. A Phlx Market Maker
may submit all quotes through one SQF Port. While a Phlx Market Maker
may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports to organize its business,\14\
only one SQF Port is necessary for a Phlx Market Maker to fulfill its
regulatory quoting obligations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, a Phlx Market Maker may desire to utilize
multiple SQF Ports for accounting purposes, to measure performance,
for regulatory reasons or other determinations that are specific to
that member organization.
    \15\ Phlx Market Makers have various regulatory requirements as
provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Additionally, Phlx Market
Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their
assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. SQF
Ports are the only quoting protocol available on Phlx and only
Market Makers may utilize SQF Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pricing change to increase the maximum SQF Port Fee
from $42,000 to $50,000 per month is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly not assess any
Market Makers that exceeded the maximum SQF Port Fee any SQF Port Fees
beyond the maximum amount. Market Makers are the only market
participants that are assessed an SQF Port Fee because they are the
only market participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange.

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.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets who also offer order entry protocols. 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. 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, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
    The proposed pricing change to increase the maximum SQF Port Fee
from $42,000 to $50,000 per month does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange would uniformly not assess any Market
Makers that exceeded the maximum SQF Port Fee any SQF Port Fees beyond
the maximum amount. Market Makers are the only market participants that
are assessed an SQF Port Fee because they are the only market
participants that are permitted to quote on the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-Phlx-2023-56 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-Phlx-2023-56. 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-Phlx-2023-56 and should be
submitted on or before January 10, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27927 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P