[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74473-74477]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90434; File No. SR-MRX-2020-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7 To Amend Taker Fees for Regular Orders

November 16, 2020.
    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 November 2, 2020, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``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 Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at
Options 7, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/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 recently filed to permit certain affiliated market
participants (i.e., Affiliated Entities) \3\ to aggregate volume and
qualify for certain pricing incentives.\4\ The purpose of the proposed
rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule to enhance
participation in the Exchange's Affiliated Entities program in order to
encourage additional order flow to the Exchange. Each change is
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ``Affiliated Entity'' is a relationship between an
Appointed Market Maker and an Appointed OFP for purposes of
qualifying for certain pricing specified in the Pricing Schedule.
Market Makers and OFPs are required to send an email to the Exchange
to appoint their counterpart, at least 3 business days prior to the
last day of the month to qualify for the next month. The Exchange
will acknowledge receipt of the emails and specify the date the
Affiliated Entity is eligible for applicable pricing, as specified
in the Pricing Schedule. Each Affiliated Entity relationship will
commence on the 1st of a month and may not be terminated prior to
the end of any month. An Affiliated Entity relationship will
terminate after a one (1) year period, unless either party
terminates earlier in writing by sending an email to the Exchange at
least 3 business days prior to the last day of the month to
terminate for the next month. Affiliated Entity relationships must
be renewed annually by each party sending an email to the Exchange.
Affiliated Members may not qualify as a counterparty comprising an
Affiliated Entity. Each Member may qualify for only one (1)
Affiliated Entity relationship at any given time. See Options 7,
Section 1(c).
    \4\ See SR-MRX-2020-17 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regular Taker Fees
    Today, as set forth in Options 7, Section 3, Table 1, the Exchange
applies a two-tier taker fee structure based on Total Affiliated Member
\5\ or Affiliated Entity ADV.\6\ In Penny Symbols, the Exchange
currently charges all non-Priority Customer \7\ orders a taker fee of
$0.50 per contract, regardless of the tier achieved. In Non-Penny
Symbols, the Exchange currently charges all non-Priority Customers a
taker fee of $0.90 per contract, regardless of tier achieved. Priority
Customer \8\ orders do not get charged taker fees for executions in
either Penny or Non-Penny Symbols today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An ``Affiliated Member'' is a Member that shares at least
75% common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the
Member's Form BD, Schedule A. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \6\ Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity ADV means all
ADV executed on the Exchange in all symbols and order types,
including volume executed by Affiliated Members or Affiliated
Entities. All eligible volume from Affiliated Members or an
Affiliated Entity will be aggregated in determining applicable
tiers. See Options 7, Section 3, Table 3.
    \7\ Non-Priority Customer include Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq MRX
Market Makers (FarMMs), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealers, and
Professional Customers.
    \8\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq MRX Options 1,
Section 1(a)(36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as set forth in note 2 within Options 7, Section 3,
Table 1, Market Maker \9\ orders that take liquidity are also currently
eligible for ADV-based fee discounts in both Penny and Non-Penny
Symbols when trading against Priority Customer orders entered by an
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity.

Today, the discounted fee is $0.05 per contract if the Member has a
Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV \10\
of 5,000 contracts or more, or $0.00 per contract if the Member has a
Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of
50,000 contracts or more. These fee discounts apply instead of the
Market Maker taker fees of $0.50 per contract in Penny Symbols and
$0.90 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term Market Makers refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively.
    \10\ Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority
Customer ADV means all Priority Customer ADV executed on the
Exchange in all symbols and order types, including volume executed
by Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities. All eligible volume
from Affiliated Members or an Affiliated Entity will be aggregated
in determining applicable tiers. See Options 7, Section 3, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes a number of changes to the current taker
fee structure described above. The Exchange first proposes to increase
the Non-Penny taker fees for all non-Priority Customer orders from
$0.90 to $1.10 per contract, regardless of tier. Priority Customer
orders will continue to be charged no fee under this proposal.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend the note 2 incentive that
currently offers discounted taker fees to qualifying Market Maker
orders in all symbols by separating the incentive structure between
Penny and Non-Penny Symbols. For Penny Symbols, the Exchange proposes
to replace the current language in note 2 with the following:
    A Taker Fee of $0.20 per contract applies instead when trading with
Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols entered by an Affiliated
Member or Affiliated Entity. A Taker Fee of $0.10 per contract applies
instead when trading with Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols
entered by an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity if the Member has
a Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of
0.20% to less than 0.75% Customer Total Consolidated Volume. A Taker
Fee of $0.00 per contract applies instead when trading with Priority
Customer orders in Penny Symbols entered by an Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity if the Member has a Total Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of 0.75% Customer Total
Consolidated Volume or more.
    For Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange proposes to introduce separate
discounted Market Maker taker fees in new note 3, which would replace
the note 2 incentive currently offered for such orders. The new
incentive will be structured similarly to the amended note 2 incentive,
except with respect to the amount of the discounted taker fees.
Otherwise, the proposed tier structure and related qualifications will
be identical to the ones proposed above for the amended note 2
incentive. As proposed, new note 3 will be added to Options 7, Section
3, Table 1 as follows:
    A Taker Fee of $0.90 per contract applies instead when trading with
Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols entered by an Affiliated
Member or Affiliated Entity. A Taker Fee of $0.50 per contract applies
instead when trading with Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols
entered by an Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity if the Member has
a Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of
0.20% to less than 0.75% Customer Total Consolidated Volume. A Taker
Fee of $0.20 per contract applies instead when trading with Priority
Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols entered by an Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity if the Member has a Total Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of 0.75% Customer Total
Consolidated Volume or more.
    Taken together, the proposed note 2 and note 3 incentives differ
from the current note 2 incentive in a few key ways. First, the current
incentive structure will be expanded from two to three tiers with the
introduction of a top tier that will contain a more stringent volume
requirement than the lower tiers in order for the Member to qualify for
free executions. The Exchange will also reduce the amount of the
discount for some tiers,\11\ while raising the volume requirement in
the new top tier to qualify for free executions. Second, the base tier
qualifications will be modified to remove the volume requirement
stipulating that the Member have a Total Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity Priority Customer ADV of 5,000 contracts or more. As
amended, the base tiers would offer the $0.20 (Penny Symbols) and $0.90
(Non-Penny Symbols) discounted Market Maker taker fees when trading
with Priority Customer orders that are entered by an Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity, without requiring them to meet a requisite volume
threshold. As noted above, this would further the Exchange's goal to
encourage Members to become Affiliated Entities, provided they are not
already Affiliated Members, thereby enhancing participation in the
Exchange's newly established Affiliated Entity program to bring
increased order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As proposed, the discounted Market Maker taker fees are
$0.20 and $0.10 in the lower tiers for Penny Symbols, and $0.90 and
$0.50 in the lower tiers for Non-Penny Symbols. Today, the
discounted Market Maker taker fee is $0.05 in the lower tier across
all symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the cumulative volume thresholds in current note 2 would be
replaced by total industry percentage thresholds, specifically
thresholds that are based on a percentage of Customer Total
Consolidated Volume.\12\ The Exchange notes that the proposed
percentage threshold of 0.20% Customer Total Consolidated Volume is
comparable in terms of requisite volume to the existing ADV threshold
of 50,000 contracts. The proposed percentage threshold for the new top
tier requires additional volume to meet the proposed criteria of 0.75%
Customer Total Consolidated Volume.\13\ The Exchange is proposing to
replace the current cumulative volume thresholds with total industry
volume percentages to align with increasing Member activity on MRX over
time. The Exchange notes that total industry percentage thresholds are
established concepts within its Pricing Schedule today.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Customer Total Consolidated Volume means the total volume
cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in
equity and ETF options in that month. See Options 7, Section 3,
Table 3.
    \13\ Today, 0.75% of Customer Total Consolidated Volume on the
Exchange is approximately 165,000 contracts per day.
    \14\ Specifically, the qualifying tier thresholds for the
Exchange's maker/taker pricing are currently based on Customer Total
Consolidated Volume percentages. See Options 7, Section 3, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to relocate the defined term
``Customer Total Consolidated Volume'' from Options 7, Section 3, Table
3 to Options 7, Section 1(c). Because this term is used throughout the
Pricing Schedule, the Exchange believes that its relocation to the
general definition section in Section 1(c) is appropriate.
Flash Order Definition
    The Exchange proposes a non-substantive, clarifying change to the
definition of a Flash Order in its Pricing Schedule. A Flash Order is
currently defined as an order that is exposed at the National Best Bid
or Offer by the Exchange to all Members for execution, as provided
under Supplementary Material .02 to Options 5, Section 2.\15\ Today,
the initiation of a Flash Order is considered as ``taker'' (i.e.,
removing liquidity from the book), while responses to a Flash Order is
considered as ``maker'' (i.e., adding liquidity to the book).
Accordingly, the current definition also indicates that for all Flash
Orders, the Exchange will charge the applicable taker fee and for
responses that trade against a Flash

Order, the Exchange will provide the applicable maker rebate. The
Exchange is not proposing to change its current billing practices with
respect to Flash Orders; however, because the Exchange does not
currently offer maker rebates and instead charges maker fees, the
Exchange proposes to clarify that for responses that trade against a
Flash Order, it will charge the applicable maker fee. As such, the
Exchange is aligning the rule text to current billing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Options 7, Section 1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its Pricing Schedule are
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'. . . .'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. 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. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Regular Taker Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its regular
taker fee structure are reasonable for several reasons. While the
Exchange is proposing to increase the Non-Penny Symbol taker fees for
all non-Priority Customer orders from $0.90 to $1.10 in Tier 1 and Tier
2, the Exchange believes that its fees remain competitive and will
continue to encourage market participants, and, in particular, Market
Makers to execute more volume on MRX. Although the base taker fees for
non-Priority Customers are increasing under this proposal, the Exchange
believes that the fee increase is balanced by the potential for the new
discounted taker fee structure proposed for Market Makers to encourage
additional liquidity and opportunities for trading, to the benefit of
all market participants. As discussed further below, the Exchange is
proposing taker fee incentives that specifically target Market Maker
activity on the Exchange. An increase in Market Maker activity may
result in tighter spreads and more trading, improving the quality of
the MRX market and increasing its attractiveness to existing and
prospective participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed taker
fees remain in line with similar fees charged by other options
exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For instance, the Exchange's affiliate, Nasdaq Options
Market (``NOM'') charges NOM Market Makers, Non-NOM Market Makers,
Firms, and Broker-Dealers a $1.10 per contract Fee to Remove
Liquidity in Non-Penny Symbols. See NOM Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 2(1). In addition, MIAX PEARL charges all MIAX PEARL
Market Makers, Non-Priority Customers, Firms, BDs, and Non-MIAX
PEARL Market Makers a base taker fee of $1.10 per contract for Non-
Penny Classes. See MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule at Section (1)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the new discounted Market Maker taker
fee structure that it is proposing in notes 2 and note 3 of Options 7,
Section 3, Table 1 is reasonable. As noted above, the proposed changes
would further the Exchange's goal of enhancing participation in the
Exchange's newly established Affiliated Entity program, which is
designed to further incentivize Members to aggregate volume and bring
more order flow to MRX to qualify for fee incentives. For the reasons
described in the following paragraphs, the Exchange believes that the
proposed discounted taker fee incentives in proposed notes 2 and 3 will
be beneficial for all market participants by encouraging an active and
liquid market on MRX.
    As discussed above, the note 2 and note 3 incentives would continue
to offer Market Makers the opportunity to receive discounted taker fees
when trading with Priority Customer orders entered by an Affiliated
Member or Affiliated Entity, with a few key differences. The Exchange
believes that expanding the current two tier incentive structure to
three tiers will continue to reward Market Makers for executing
increasingly larger Priority Customer volume on MRX to obtain the
proposed discounted fees. Permitting Members to aggregate volume for
purposes of qualifying the Market Maker under an Affiliated Member
relationship or an Appointed Market Maker \21\ under an Affiliated
Entity relationship will also encourage the counterparty order flow
providers that comprise the Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity
relationship to bring additional Priority Customer order flow to MRX.
While the Exchange is reducing the amount of the discount for the lower
tiers,\22\ the Exchange believes this is reasonable given that it will
be significantly easier to qualify for the discounted taker fee in the
base incentive tier under this proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a Market Maker who has
been appointed by an OFP for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated
Entity. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \22\ See supra note 11.
    \23\ As proposed, the Exchange will no longer require Market
Makers to meet a requisite volume threshold in order to qualify for
the discounted taker fees of $0.20 (Penny Symbols) and $0.90 (Non-
Penny Symbols) in the base incentive tier. See proposed notes 2 and
3 in Options 7, Section 3, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also changing the volume qualifications for the
discounted taker fee incentives by removing (for the base tiers only)
or replacing the current cumulative volume thresholds with

total industry percentage thresholds for the Affiliated Member or
Affiliated Entity. The Exchange believes that removing the volume
requirements for the base tier so that Market Makers would be able to
more easily obtain the benefit of the discounted taker fee if they
trade with any Priority Customer orders entered by an Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity would further incentivize Market Makers to
aggregate and execute large volumes of Priority Customer orders on the
Exchange to qualify for the discounted Market Maker taker fees.
    The Exchange also believes that replacing the current cumulative
volume thresholds with total industry percentage thresholds is
reasonable in order to align with increasing Member activity on MRX
over time. The Exchange is proposing to base the discounted Market
Maker taker fee volume requirements on a percentage of industry volume
in recognition of the fact that the volume executed by a Member may
rise or fall with industry volume. A percentage of industry volume
calculation allows the qualifications within notes 2 and 3 to be
calibrated to current market volumes rather than requiring a static
amount of volume regardless of market conditions. While the amount of
volume required by the proposed qualifications in notes 2 and 3 may
change in any given month due to increases or decreases in industry
volume, the Exchange believes that the proposed threshold requirements
are set at appropriate levels. The proposed thresholds of 0.20%
Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which is comparable to the existing
ADV requirement of 50,000 contracts, and 0.75% Customer Total
Consolidated Volume, which is new and requires additional volume,\24\
are both intended to continue to reward Market Makers for executing
more volume on MRX. To the extent Market Maker activity is increased by
this proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the
opportunity to trade on the Exchange, and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, 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. As noted
above, total industry percentage thresholds are also established
concepts within the Exchange's Pricing Schedule.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 13.
    \25\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the regular taker
fee structure in the manner described above is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. As it relates to the increase in Non-Penny
Symbol taker fees, the Exchange will apply this change to all non-
Priority Customers while Priority Customers will continue to not be
charged taker fees under this proposal. The Exchange continues to
believe that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
free executions to Priority Customer orders as the Exchange is seeking
to attract this order flow. The Exchange believes that attracting more
volume from Priority Customers benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities on MRX.
    Furthermore, the Exchange's proposal to provide the discounted
Market Maker taker fees in note 2 and note 3 is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. As discussed above, the proposed threshold of
0.20% Customer Total Consolidated Volume is comparable to the existing
ADV requirement of 50,000 contracts, so the Exchange anticipates
minimal impact to Market Makers as a result of replacing the current
cumulative volume threshold with the new total industry percentage
threshold. While the proposed threshold of 0.75% Customer Total
Consolidated Volume is new and requires additional volume,\26\ the
Exchange likewise anticipates minimal impact with this proposed change
because no Market Makers meet the current ADV threshold for free
executions, and thus would not fall out of the proposed highest tier as
a result of this change. The Exchange also believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer the
discounted taker fee incentives only to Market Makers. Market Makers
have special obligations to the market (such as quoting obligations)
that other market participants do not. As such, these incentives are
designed to increase Market Maker participation and reward Market
Makers for the unique role they play in ensuring a robust market.
Furthermore, providing the discounted taker fees specifically to Market
Makers that trade with Priority Customer orders entered by Affiliated
Members or Affiliated Entities will encourage firms to bring more of
this order flow to the Exchange. Priority Customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and
attracting other market participants, thus facilitating tighter spreads
and increased order flow to the benefit of all market participants. In
addition, all Members that are not Affiliated Members may enter into an
Affiliated Entity relationship. Thus, rewarding Members that use these
programs to aggregate volume to bring a more order flow is beneficial
to all market participants, who are free to interact with such order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to relocate
the definition of Customer Total Consolidated Volume into Options 7,
Section 1(c) is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Because this term is used throughout the Pricing Schedule, the Exchange
believes that its relocation to the general definition section in
Section 1(c) is appropriate and brings greater transparency to the
Pricing Schedule.
Flash Order Definition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to clarify in the
definition of a Flash Order that it will charge the applicable maker
fee for responses that trade against the Flash Order (instead of
providing that it will provide the applicable maker rebate) is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed
above, the Exchange is not changing its current billing practices with
respect to Flash Orders, and Members are being uniformly charged the
applicable maker fee for their executed responses against Flash Orders
today. Accordingly, the proposed change aligns the rule text to current
practice.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other options 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. If
the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it
is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the

proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal will place any category of market participant at a
competitive disadvantage. The proposed changes to the regular taker fee
structure are ultimately designed to incentivize Members to bring
additional order flow to the Exchange and create a more active and
liquid market on MRX. The proposed discounted taker fees will continue
to reward Market Makers for executing increasingly larger Priority
Customer volume entered by Affiliated Members or Affiliated Entities on
MRX to obtain the proposed incentives. As discussed above, permitting
Members to aggregate volume for purposes of qualifying the Market Maker
under an Affiliated Member relationship or an Appointed Market Maker
under an Affiliated Entity relationship will also encourage the
counterparty order flow providers that comprise the Affiliated Member
or Affiliated Entity relationship to bring additional Priority Customer
order flow to MRX. All Members will benefit from any increase in market
activity that the proposal effectuates through increased trading
opportunities and price discovery.

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,\27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \28\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MRX-2020-19 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-MRX-2020-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2020-19 and should be submitted on
or before December 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25617 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26975-26976]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09619]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10008-74-Region 10]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for the U.S. Department of Energy--Hanford
Operations, Benton County, Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air
Act title V operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order, dated February 19, 2020, denying a petition dated July 18,
2019, filed by Mr. Bill Green of Richland, Washington. The Petition
requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V
operating permit (Permit No. 00-05-006, Renewal 3) issued by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to the U.S. Department
of Energy--Hanford Operations (DOE) for the Hanford site located in
Benton County, Washington.

ADDRESSES: The Petition (without attachments) and final Order are
available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Region 10 office is closed to the public to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Please contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the
Petition, Order, and other supporting information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Hardesty at telephone number:
(208) 378-5759<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to a title V operating permit proposed by a state
permitting authority under title V of the CAA if the EPA determines the
permit does not comply with the Act. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a
title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the
EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own
initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit
that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment
period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that
it was impracticable to raise these issues

during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose
after this period.
    The EPA received the Petition from Mr. Bill Green of Richland,
Washington, dated July 18, 2019, requesting that the EPA object to the
issuance of title V operating permit no. 00-05-006, Renewal 3, issued
by Ecology to DOE for the Hanford site in Benton County, Washington.
    The Petition claims that: (1) Ecology exceeded its authority in
imposing a monitoring method that had not been approved by the EPA for
determining compliance with emission limits for federally-enforceable
requirements and that the monitoring method was flawed; (2) the permit
failed to include all emission limitations as required by CAA section
504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661c(a), and 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1) because the permit
incorporated some federally-enforceable emission limits by reference
and ``does not actually include emission limits;'' (3) the permit did
not include the requirements for the control of fugitive dust from a
2003 administrative order of correction issued by the Benton Clean Air
Agency; and (4) Ecology did not comply with the public participation
requirements of 40 CFR 70.7(h)(2) with respect to several permit terms.
    On February 19, 2020, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying
the Petition. The Order explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that the Order is
subject to judicial review for those portions of the Order that deny
issues raised in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later
than July 6, 2020.

    Dated: April 30, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-09619 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3586-3588]
[DOCID:fr21ja09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 09, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-586-007.
    Applicants: Madison Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Madison Gas and Electric Company submits revisions to
its Market-Based Power Sales Tariff, First Revised Volume 4, to be
effective 1/6/09.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-3080-005.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Otter Tail Power Company submits an updated market
power analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-3767-006; ER05-841-003.
    Applicants: Praxair, Inc., Praxair Plainfield Inc.
    Description: Praxair, Inc. and Praxair Plainfield, Inc. submits an
errata to their 12/18/08 filing of Substitute First Revised Sheet 2 et
al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 in compliance with
Order 697.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1860-003.
    Applicants: Cobb Electric Membership Corp.
    Description: Cobb Electric Membership Corp submits updated Market
Power Analysis pursuant to Orders 697 & 697-A.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-533-004; ER03-762-012.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., Alliant Energy
Neenah, LLC.
    Description: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. et al. submit
updated Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-805-010.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. submits a Notice
of Change in Status in compliance with reporting requirements adopted
by the FERC in Order 652, Reporting Requirement for Change in Status
for Public Utilities with Market-Based.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-367-001; ER06-615-035.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits Fourth Revised Version of FERC Electric Tariff, 125 FERC 61,262
issued on 12/4/08.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-371-003.
    Applicants: Cooperative Energy Incorporated.
    Description: Cooperative Energy, Inc. submits its Updated Market
Power Analysis pursuant to Order Nos. 697 and 697-A etc.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-79-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits the corrected
executed Meter Agent Service Agreement filed on 10/15/08 with Smoky
Hills Wind Project II, LLC etc.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-84-002.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Ohio Power Company et al., submits Revised
Interconnection Agreement between American Electric Power Service Corp
and West Penn Power Co et al.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0319.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-488-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: Ohio Power Company and Columbus Southern Power Company
requests acceptance of a Fifteenth Revised Interconnection and Local
Delivery Service Agreement with Buckeye Power, Inc etc.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-489-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a letter
agreement with Granite Wind LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-490-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits the amended
Interconnection Service and Facilities Agreement with AES Huntington
Beach, LLC, Service Agreement 4 under SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff,
FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 6.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090106-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-491-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
counterpart signature pages of the New England Power Pool Agreement,
dated as of 9/1/71, as amended etc.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-492-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Virginia Electric and Power Company submit revised
Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service between Dominion
and Industrial Power Generating Company.
    Filed Date: 01/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-493-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits Meter Agent Services
Agreement between Tenaska Power Services Co as the Market Participant
and Southwestern Public Service Company as the Meter Agent.
    Filed Date: 01/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-494-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits amendments to the
PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-495-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits revised pages to
its Open Access Transmission Tariff to implement ministerial tariff
revisions to the Rate Formula template for Westar Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-496-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits an executed
interconnection service agreement among PJM, North Allegheny Wind,
L.L.C. et al.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2008.
    Accession Number: 20090105-0227.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-497-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits amendments to
Schedule 12 Appendix of the PJM Tariff.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-498-000.
    Applicants: Vickers Power, L.L.C.
    Description: Vickers Power, L.L.C. submits Market-Based Rate
Authority and Request for Waivers.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-499-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an executed Amended and Restated Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement among the Midwest ISO et al.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-500-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a revised tariff sheet designated
to cancel PacificCorp's First Revised Rate 258 with Sierra Pacific
Power Company.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-501-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection submits an executed
interconnection service agreement entered into among PJM, WM Renewable
Energy, L.L.C. and Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-506-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and
Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to incorporate etc.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090108-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-507-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Power Connecticut L.L.C..
    Description: PSEG Power Connecticut submits for filing Revised
Reliability Must Run Agreements to Include Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Allowance Costs.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0320.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-508-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Service Agreement 539 for Network
Integration Transmission Service with Bonneville Power Administration
etc.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0318.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-509-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. submits an executed Affected
System Study Funding Agreement with Tennessee Valley Authority pursuant
to Order 614.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0321.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-510-000.
    Applicants: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.
    Description: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation submits
Eighth Revised Sheet 9 et al. to Rate Schedule FERC No 202.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0322.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 26, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-511-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Service Agreement No 537 under its
Seventh Revised Volume No 11 Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0323.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-512-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an Amended and Restated Interconnection and Operating Agreement
among the Midwest ISO, Rainy River Energy Corporation-Wisconsin, etc.

    Filed Date: 01/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090107-0324.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 27, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1033 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P