[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58772-58778]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87404; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule

October 28, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 15, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE

American'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
change effective October 15, 2019. The proposed change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is modify the Fee Schedule to introduce
two incentive programs that are designed to encourage increased Manual
and Electronic order flow to the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants.
    In brief, and as described further below, the first proposed change
is designed to encourage Manual transactions by NYSE American Options
Market Makers and Specialists/e-Specialists by offering these
participants discounted rates on any portion of their monthly Manual
volume (excluding Strategy Executions and QCC Transactions) that
exceeds, by a specified percentage of Total Industry Customer equity
and ETF option average daily volume (``TCADV''),\4\ either the
participants' August 2019 volume or, in the case of a new NYSE American
Options Market Makers or and Specialists/e-Specialists, a base level of
15,000 ADV. The second proposed change is designed to encourage ATP
Holders to increase their Electronic volume in the ``Professional''
range.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer discounted rates
on monthly Professional volume as well as certain credits on Customer
Electronic volume, including for initiating CUBE volume, to ATP Holders
that increase their Professional volume (excluding Strategy Executions,
CUBE Auctions, and QCC Transactions) by specified percentages of TCADV
over their August 2019 volume, or in the case of new ATP Holders, above
a base level of 10,000 ADV. The Exchange believes that the baselines of
15,000 ADV Manual volumes for new NYSE American Options Market Makers
and/or Specialists/e-Specialists and 10,000 ADV Professional volumes
for new ATP Holders are appropriate because these volumes are
comparable to trading volumes in August 2019 of active firms on the
Exchange in the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``TCADV'' is defined in the Key Terms and
Definitions Section of the Preface of the Fee Schedule, see infra
note 8 [sic]. TCADV includes Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
calculated Customer volume of all types, including Complex Order
transactions and QCC transactions, in equity and ETF options.
    \5\ For purposes of this filing, ``Professional'' Electronic
volume includes: Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE
American Options Market Maker, and Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule changes on October 15,
2019.
Background
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in the first quarter of 2019, the Exchange had less
than 10% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity &
ETF options trades.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety of
formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange, available
here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \8\ Based on OCC data, see id., the Exchange's market share in
equity-based options declined from 9.82% for the month of January to
8.84% for the month of April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees.
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange has
established various pricing incentives designed to encourage increased
Manual and Electronic volume executed on the Exchange, including (but
not limited to) the American Customer Engagement (``ACE'') Program.
While the ACE Program is limited to Electronic Customer volume, the
Exchange proposes two new pricing incentives that focus on encouraging
additional Manual volume and Professional Electronic volume. To the
extent that these incentives succeed, the increased liquidity on the
Exchange would result in enhanced market quality for all participants.
Proposed Rule Change
Manual Volume Incentive for MMs and Specialists
    The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE American Options Market Makers
(``MMs'') and Specialists/e-Specialists (``Specialists) discounted
rates on Manual transactions that exceed a specified volume threshold.
Currently, Manual transactions in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot issues
are subject to a per contract rate of $0.25 for MMs and $0.18 for
Specialists.\9\ As proposed, MMs or Specialists that increase their
monthly Manual volumes by a specified percentage of TCADV over their
August 2019 volume or, for new MMs or Specialists, that increase Manual

volume by a specified percentage of TCADV above a base level of 15,000
ADV (``Increased Manual Volume'') are eligible to receive a discounted
rate solely on the Increased Manual Volume as set forth below. The
Exchange will exclude any volumes attributable to QCC trades or
Strategy Execution from monthly calculations of base level or Increased
Manual Volume, as these transactions are subject to separate pricing
described in Fee Schedule, Sections I.F., I.G. and I.J., respectively.
As proposed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.A. (Options Transaction Fees and
Credits, Rates for Options transactions), available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     MMs with Increased Manual Volume of at least 0.15% TCADV
will be charged $0.18 per contract for the Increased Manual Volume.
(Specialists currently pay $0.18 per contract for all Manual
transactions); and
     MMs and Specialists with an Increased Manual Volume of at
least 0.30% TCADV will be charged $0.12 per contract for the Increased
Manual Volume.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.A. (Options
Transaction Fees and Credits, Rates for Options transactions), note
8 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume a MM executed 18,000 ADV Manual Volume in
August, 2019. In October, the TCADV is 17,200,000. An increase of 0.15%
of TCADV would be equal to 25,800 contracts. An increase of 0.30% of
TCADV would be equal to 51,600 contracts.
    Thus, if the MM executed 44,500 ADV in October, the MM would
qualify for $0.18 per contract on the MM's volume above the 18,000 ADV
(i.e., the Increased Volume Amount of 26,500 contracts). The MM's
billing would reflect $0.25 per contract on the MM's base amount of
18,000 ADV, and $0.18 per contact on the Increased Manual Volume of
26,500 ADV.
    If the same MM executed 74,000 ADV in October, the MM would qualify
for $0.12 per contract on the MM's volume above the 18,000 ADV (i.e.,
the Increased Volume Amount of 56,000 contracts). The MM's billing
would reflect $0.25 per contract on the MM's base amount of 18,000 ADV,
and $0.12 per contract on the Increased Manual Volume of 56,000 ADV.
    The Exchange believes this proposed incentive pricing is
appropriate because Market Makers (Specialists) serve a crucial role in
the options markets by providing liquidity to facilitate market
efficiency and functioning. The Exchange's fees are constrained by
intermarket competition, as Market Makers can register on any or all of
the 16 options exchanges. Thus, ATP Holders that are also members of
other exchanges have a choice of where they register and operate as
Market Makers. The proposed pricing incentive for MMs and Specialists
is therefore designed to encourage these participants to (continue to)
conduct Manual (open outcry) trading on the Floor of the Exchange. The
Exchange notes that all market participants stand to benefit from
increased Manual transaction volume, which promotes market depth,
facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, and may lead
to a corresponding increase in (Manual or Electronic) order flow from
other market participants.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any ATP Holders
would avail themselves of this proposed fee change, particularly
because the proposed pricing incentive is new. Assuming historical
behavior can be predictive of future behavior, however, the Exchange
believes that at present participation rates, between two and four
firms may be able to qualify for discounted Manual rates.
Professional Step-Up Incentive
    The Exchange also proposes to introduce an incentive for ATP
Holders to increase (or ``step up'') their Electronic Professional \11\
volume by offering lower rates and credits based on volume growth
(i.e., Tier A, Tier B, and Tier C). Specifically, an ATP Holder may
qualify for discounted rates on its monthly Electronic Professional
volume and receive credits on certain Electronic Customer volume,
including initiating CUBE volume, provided the ATP Holder increases its
monthly Electronic Professional volume by specified percentages of
TCADV over their August 2019 volume or, for new ATP Holders, that
increase Electronic Professional volume by a specified percentages of
TCADV above a base level of 10,000 contracts ADV (the ``Qualifying
Volume''), as set forth in the table below. The Exchange will exclude
any volumes attributable to QCC trades, CUBE Auctions, or Strategy
Execution from monthly calculations of base level or Qualifying Volume,
as these transactions are subject to separate pricing described in Fee
Schedule Sections I.F., I.G. and I.J., respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 5 (defining Professional volume).

                                         Professional Step-Up Incentive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Qualifying     Per contract    Per contract
                                     volume as a %    penny pilot      non-penny            ACE benefits
                                       of TCADV          rate         pilot rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier A............................            0.04           $0.42           $0.65  N/A.
Tier B............................            0.07            0.35            0.55  Tier 1 Customer Credits only
                                                                                (per Section I.E.).
Tier C............................            0.09            0.25            0.50  Tier 1 Customer Credits (per
                                                                                Section I.E.), plus ACE
                                                                                Initiating Participant
                                                                                Rebate--All issues (per
                                                                                Section I.G.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the table above, the greater the increase in Qualifying
Volume, the more benefits that accrue to the ATP Holder. To put in
context, assume an ATP Holder executed Electronic Professional volume
in August 2019 totaling 9,000 ADV and, in October, the TCADV is
17,200,000. To qualify for the Professional Step-Up Incentive program,
that ATP Holder would need to execute Electronic Professional volume
above its August 2019 that is at least 6,880 (i.e., 0.04% of TCADV) for
Tier A; 12,040 (i.e., 0.07% of TCADV) for Tier B; or 15,480 (i.e.,
0.09% of TCADV) for Tier C. If that same ATP Holder did not have August
2019 volume, it would have to execute at least this much volume above
the 10,000 ADV base level.
    ATP Holders that qualify for Tier A--the lowest Professional volume
growth threshold, would be charged reduced rates of $0.42 and $0.65 on
Professional Electronic executions on Penny and Non-Penny issues,
respectively.\12\ ATP Holders that qualify for Tier B would be charged
even further reduced rates--of $0.35 and $0.55 on Professional
Electronic executions on Penny and Non-Penny issues, respectively,\13\
and would also receive credits on Professional Electronic Customer
executions that are the same as those available to ATP Holders that
achieve Tier 1 of the ACE Program (the ``ACE Tier 1 Customer
Credits'').\14\ However, participants that qualify for Tier B of the
Professional Step-Up Incentive do not receive any other benefits that
inure to ATP Holders that qualify for ACE Tier 1. Finally, ATP Holders
that qualify for Tier C would be charged the most reduced rates--$0.25
and $0.50 on Electronic Professional executions on Penny and Non-Penny
issues, respectively; \15\ would receive the ACE Tier 1 Customer
Credits; and would receive the ``ACE Initiating Participant Rebate--All
Issues'' (or ``ACE Rebate''), which applies rebates to certain volume
that initiates a Customer Best Execution Auction or ``CUBE.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Fee Schedule, Section I. A., supra note 9 (setting
forth options transactions rates for Electronic Professional volume
of $0.50 and $0.75 for Penny and Non-Penny issues respectively;
except that Firm execution in Penny issues are charged $0.47 per
contract).
    \13\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Section I.A. (Options
Transaction Fees and Credits, Rates for Options transactions), note
8 [sic].
    \14\ See id.; see also Fee Schedule, Section I.E. (describing
ACE Program).
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.G. (describing CUBE Auctions
Fees & Credits, for Single-Leg and Complex CUBE Auctions). In the
case of a Single-Leg CUBE Auction, the pricing table (at note 2),
states that the ACE Rebate ``is applied to each of the first 5,000
Customer contracts of a CUBE Order executed in a [Single-Leg] CUBE
Auction,'' and is available to participants that qualify for ACE
Tier 1. See id. In the case of a Complex CUBE Auction, the pricing
table (at note 2), ACE ``is applied to each of the first 1,000
Customer contracts per leg of a Complex CUBE Order executed in a
Complex CUBE Auction,'' and is available to participants that
qualify for ACE Tier 1. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket competition, as
ATP Holders may direct their order flow to any of the 16 options
exchanges, including those with similar incentive programs.\17\ Thus,
ATP Holders have a choice of where they direct their order flow. This
proposed Professional Step-Up Incentive program is designed to
encourage ATP Holders to increase the amount of Electronic Professional
volume directed to and executed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes
that all market participants stand to benefit from increased Electronic
Professional volume, which promotes market depth, facilitates tighter
spreads and enhances price discovery, and may lead to a corresponding
increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See e.g., MIAX Options fee schedule, Section 1.a.iv,
Professional Rebate Program, available here, https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee_schedule-files/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_04012019.pdf (setting forth per contract
credits on volume submitted for the account of Public Customers that
are not Priority Customers, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Non-Member
Broker Dealers, and Firms (collectively, Professional for purposes
of MIAX program), provided the Member achieves certain Professional
volume increase percentage thresholds (set forth in the schedule) in
the month relative to the fourth quarter of 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any ATP Holders
would avail themselves of this proposed fee change, particularly
because the proposed Professional Step-Up Incentive program is new.
Assuming historical behavior can be predictive of future behavior,
however, the Exchange believes that at present participation rates,
between two and four firms may be able to qualify for Professional
Step-Up Incentive program.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\19\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, 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.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 6, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\21\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in the first quarter of 2019, the Exchange had less
than 10% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity &
ETF options trades.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 7.
    \22\ Based on OCC data, see supra note 8, in 2019, the
Exchange's market share in equity-based options declined from 9.82%
for the month of January to 7.86% for the month of September.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
Manual Volume Incentive for MMs and Specialists
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to offer reduced rates for
MMs and Specialists on Increased Manual Volume is reasonable because it
is designed to incent these participants to increase the number and
type of Manual executions sent to the Floor of the Exchange. Market
Makers (and Specialists) serve a crucial role in the options markets by
providing liquidity to facilitate market efficiency and functioning.
The Exchange's fees are

constrained by intermarket competition, as Market Makers can register
on any or all of the 16 options exchanges. ATP Holders that are also
members of other exchanges have a choice of where they register as
Market Makers. Thus, the Exchange believes that this proposed rule
change will provide an incentive for MMs and Specialists to (continue
to) conduct (open outcry) Manual trading on the Exchange with increased
volume. The Exchange notes that all market participants stand to
benefit from increased Manual transaction volume, which promotes market
depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, and
may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
Professional Step-Up Incentive
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Professional Step-Up
Incentive is reasonable because it is designed to incent ATP Holders to
increase the amount of Electronic Professional order flow directed to
the Exchange. In addition, because the top two tiers (B and C) of this
program allow qualifying ATP Holders to also receive credits on
Electronic Customer volume (per Tier 1 of the ACE program) and, for
Tier C only, to achieve rebates on certain initiating CUBE Auction
order flow, the proposed program may encourage ATP Holders to direct
both Professional and Customer Electronic order flow, including
initiating CUBE volume to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that all
market participants stand to benefit from increased Electronic
transaction volume--whether Professional or Customer, as such increase
promotes market depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price
discovery, and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from
other market participants that do not participant in (or qualify for)
the Professional Step-Up Incentive program.
    The Exchange believes that the baselines of 15,000 ADV Manual
volumes for new NYSE American Options Market Makers and/or Specialists/
e-Specialists and 10,000 ADV Professional volumes for new ATP Holders
are reasonable because these volumes are comparable to trading volumes
in August 2019 of active firms on the Exchange in the respective
categories.
    Regarding both proposed pricing changes, the Exchange cannot
predict with certainty whether any participants would avail themselves
of the proposed fee changes, particularly because both of the proposed
incentives are new. Assuming historical behavior can be predictive of
future behavior, however, the Exchange believes that at present
participation rates, between two and four firms may be able to qualify
for the discounted Manual rates and between two and four firms may be
able to qualify for the Professional Step-Up Inventive.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that the ``two and four'' firms that may
qualify for the different incentives proposed herein are not the
same ``two and four'' firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to the extent the proposed pricing incentives attract
greater volume and liquidity (to the Floor or otherwise), the Exchange
believes the proposed changes would improve the Exchange's overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which
the Exchange operates, the proposed rule changes are a reasonable
attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve
its market share relative to its competitors. The proposed rule changes
are designed to incent ATP Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange,
in both Manual and Electronic executions, similar to other exchange
programs with competitive pricing programs,\24\ thereby promoting
market depth, price discovery and improvement and enhancing order
execution opportunities for market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., supra note 17 (regarding MIAX Professional
Rebate Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposals--both for discounted
rates on Increased Manual Volume for MMs and Specialists and the
Professional Step-Up Incentive program--are based on the amount and
type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders can opt to
avail themselves of these incentive or not. Moreover, the proposals are
designed to encourage MMs, Specialists, and ATP Holders to aggregate
their executions--particularly Manual and Electronic Professional--at
the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the
proposed changes attract more Manual and (Professional) Electronic
volume to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things,
order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes
would improve market quality for all market participants on the
Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange
thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
    The Exchange believes that the baselines of 15,000 ADV Manual
volumes for new NYSE American Options Market Makers and/or Specialists/
e-Specialists and 10,000 ADV Professional volumes for new ATP Holders
are appropriate because these volumes are comparable to trading volumes
in August 2019 of active firms on the Exchange in the respective
categories.
The Proposed Rule Change is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposals--both for discounted rates
on Increased Manual Volume for MMs and Specialists and the Professional
Step-Up Incentive program--are not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed modifications would be available to all similarly-situated
market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    The Exchange believes that the baselines of 15,000 ADV Manual
volumes for new NYSE American Options Market Makers and/or Specialists/
e-Specialists and 10,000 ADV Professional volumes for new ATP Holders
are not unfairly discriminatory because these volumes are comparable to
trading volumes in August 2019 of active firms on the Exchange in the
respective categories.
    The proposals are based on the amount and type of business
transacted on the Exchange and MMs, Specialists, and ATP Holders are
not obligated to try to achieve either of the incentive pricing
options. Rather, the proposals are designed to encourage these
participants to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue (if
they have not done so previously) or increase (both Manual and
Electronic) volume sent to the Exchange. To the extent that the
proposed changes attract more executions to the Exchange, this
increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more
competitive venue for, among other things, order execution. Thus, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants 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.
    With regard to the proposed discount rates on certain increases in
Manual volume by MMs and Specialists, the Exchange notes that the
Manual rates charged to these participants are already lower than the
rates charged to other participants.\25\ MMs (and Specialists) serve a
crucial role in financial markets by providing liquidity to facilitate
market efficiency and functioning. Market Makers, unlike other market
participants, add value through continuous quoting and the commitment
of capital. Because Market Makers have these obligations and regulatory
requirements that normally do not apply to other market participants,
the Exchange believes that offering the proposed reduced Manual rates
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in light of their
obligations and the costs associated therewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.A., supra note 9 (setting forth
rates for Manual options transactions: MMs and Specialists are
charged $0.18 per contract, while all other non-Customer participant
(save for DOMMs) is charged $0.25 per contract).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 6, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed changes are designed to
attract additional order flow (both Manual and Electronic, particularly
Professional volume) to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed pricing incentives would incent market participants to direct
additional volume to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all
market participants on the Exchange and increased Manual and Electronic
Professional volume would increase opportunities for execution of other
trading interest. The proposed pricing incentives would be available to
all similarly-situated market participants that incur transaction fees
on Manual and Electronic executions, and, as such, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange.
    Market Makers, unlike other market participants, add value through
continuous quoting and the commitment of capital. Because Market Makers
have these obligations and regulatory requirements that normally do not
apply to other market participants, the Exchange believes that offering
the proposed reduced rates, in light of their obligations and the costs
associated therewith, does not create an undue burden on non-Market
Makers.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges 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 and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\27\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More specifically, in
the first quarter of 2019, the Exchange had less than 10% market share
of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options trades.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 7.
    \28\ Based on OCC data, supra note 8, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options declined from 9.82% for the month of
January to 8.84% for the month of April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading interest
(both Manual and Electronic) to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and
to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all
the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar pricing incentives, by encouraging
additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed change is designed to provide
the public and investors with a Fee Schedule that is clear and
consistent, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and
facilitating investor protection.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-43 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 No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-43. 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 No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-43, and should be submitted
on or before November 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23857 Filed 10-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78806]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-0268; Summary Notice No. 2023-42]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American
Aerospace Technologies Incorporated

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-0268
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean O'Tormey at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2023.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-0268.
    Petitioner: American Aerospace Technologies Incorporated.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.133(a), 91.7(a),
91.9(b)(2), 91.105(a)(1), 91.105(a)(2), 91.107, 91.109, 91.121,
91.203(a), 91.203(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1),
91.409(a)(2), and Part 21, Subpart H, of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner is seeking to operate a
fixed wing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing over 55 pounds, in
order to conduct: critical infrastructure inspection of pipeline and
oil field surveillance; emergency response (e.g., wildland fire
surveillance); research and development; and training, all beyond
visual line of site (BVLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) using Detect
and Avoid systems, in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

[FR Doc. 2023-25291 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 40043]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-63-000.
    Applicants: NRG Wholesale Generation LP, Entergy Mississippi, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Joint Application for Authorization
Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act [Exhibit M] of NRG Wholesale
Generation LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20190805-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1222-006.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised Tariff Record Reactive
Service for Keys to be effective 7/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190806-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2343-001.
    Applicants: 2018 ESA Project Company, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application to be
effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 7/31/19.
    Accession Number: 20190731-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2507-001; ER13-1793-013; ER12-1260-014.
    Applicants: Convergent Energy and Power LP, Hazle Spindle, LLC,
Stephentown Spindle, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Convergent MBR
Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20190805-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2534-000.
    Applicants: Citizens Energy Corporation.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application, Request for
Waiver and Baseline MBR Tariff to be effective 8/10/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190806-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2535-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Enhance Market
Settlements Associated with Emergency Energy to be effective 10/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190806-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/19

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2536-000.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination of Expired
Service Agreement--Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC to be effective 10/29/
2014.
    Filed Date: 8/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190806-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 6, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17292 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58875-58877]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0839]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Frogtown Race Regatta; Maumee River,
Toledo, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary Special Local
Regulation on the Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio. This Special Local
Regulation is necessary to protect race participants from other vessel
traffic. This temporary Special Local Regulation is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of the Maumee River during the annual
Frogtown Race Regatta.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 a.m. until 7 p.m. on September 28,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2013-0839. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being available in the

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2013-0839 in
the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, contact or email MST1 Ian M. Fallon, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. Additional details regarding emergent event were received
after the annual permitting process but not received in sufficient time
for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the
event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would
inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from the
hazards associated with the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On Saturday, September 28, 2013, from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. an organized
racing event will take place on the Maumee River in which participants
rowing shell boats from the Norfolk and Southern Bridge at River Mile
1.80 to the Anthony Wayne Bridge at River Mile 5.16 on the Maumee River
in Toledo, OH. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this
boat race, which is in close proximity to watercraft and in the
shipping channel pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and
property, including potential collisions, allisions, and individuals
falling in the water. Establishing a special local regulated area is
necessary to protect persons and property at these events and help
minimize the associated risks.

C. Discussion of Rule

    This rule will be effective and enforced 5 a.m. until 7 p.m. on
September 28, 2013. The Coast Guard requires that all vessels
transiting the area proceed at a no-wake speed and maintain extra
vigilance at all times.
    Vessel traffic may proceed down the West side of the river at a no
wake speed during racing. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or
commercial traffic. The on-scene representative or event sponsor
representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race
activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on
any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to
patrol the event.
    This temporary Special Local Regulation will encompass all U.S.
waters on the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Norfolk and Southern
Railway Bridge at River Mile 1.80 to the Anthony Wayne Bridge at River
Mile 5.16.
    The Captain of the Port will notify the affected segments of the
public of the enforcement of this Special Local Regulation by all
appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local
Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We conclude that this
temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action because we
anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. The temporary Special Local Regulation will be
relatively small and be enforced for a relatively short time. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some
of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the portion of the Maumee River
discussed above from 5 a.m. until 7 p.m. on September 28, 2012.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of
Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with,
Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's
responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade and therefore is
categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the
Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this boat racing
event an environmental analysis was conducted to include the effects of
this special local regulation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.T09-0839 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T09-0839  Special Local Regulation, Frogtown Race Regatta,
Toledo, OH.

    (a) Location. The regulated area includes all U.S. navigable waters
of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH, from the Norfolk and Southern Railway
Bridge at River Mile 1.80 to the Anthony Wayne Bridge at River Mile
5.16.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section will be
effective and enforced from 5 a.m. until 7 p.m. on September 28, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Consistent with Sec.  100.901 of this part,
vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake
speed and remain vigilant at all times. Additionally, vessels within
the regulated area must yield right-of-way for event participants and
event safety craft. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over
event participants, and event safety craft.
    (2) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the
Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard
or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port, Sector
Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.
    (3) Vessel operators entering or operating in the special local
regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: September 13, 2013.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2013-23286 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 23, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2001-11036

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V.
                      Date Filed:  December 4, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination services
between:  1) Monterrey, Mexico, and Las Vegas, Nevada; and 2)
Hermosillo, Mexico, and Ontario, California.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 13, 2001, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                        Action date:
December 23, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 23, 2002, through
December 23, 2003.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic
敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯
摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰
瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42598-42599]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28632; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Restricted Area R-3404; Crane, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Restricted Area R-3404 at Crane, IN, in
support of U.S. Navy ordnance demolition activities. The FAA is taking
this action to protect nonparticipating aircraft from blast fragments
generated during the demilitarization and disposal of a variety of
types of unexpended ordnance at the Naval Support Activity (NSA)
Crane's Demolition Range.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 23, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, October 23, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Restricted
Area R-3404 at Crane, IN (72 FR 59971). Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal. There were six comments received during the NPRM
comment period that raised two substantive concerns: (1) Impact to
aircraft of a higher restricted area ceiling during icing conditions,
and (2) lateral encroachment into VOR Federal Airway V-305.
    Five commenters stated the proposal would impact users due to the
ceiling of R-3404 being raised from 2,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) to
4,100 feet MSL along a major flyway between Evansville, IN, and
Indianapolis, IN, when icing conditions force aircraft to lower
altitudes. The FAA does not agree. The existing restricted area
airspace is \1/2\ nautical mile (NM) in radius and has a ceiling up to
2,500 feet MSL. The proposed modification increases the airspace to a 1
NM radius from the center of the restricted area's existing center
point, making the restricted area 2 NM in diameter, and increases the
ceiling to and including 4,100 feet MSL. The aeronautical analysis of
this proposal by the controlling air traffic control facilities
determined that instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules
(VFR) terminal operations would be minimally effected by this proposal,
as well as minimum impact to public use or charted private airports. In
the event IFR aircraft should encounter icing conditions when R-3404 is
activated, those IFR aircraft will be vectored by air traffic control
to remain clear of the restricted area. If VFR aircraft should
encounter icing conditions when the restricted area is activated, they
can easily circumnavigate the 2 NM diameter of the expanded restricted
area.
    All six commenters expressed concern over the proposed expansion of
R-3404, laterally and vertically, impacting the access to Federal
Airway V-305 below 5,000 feet MSL. The FAA partially agrees. Although
the proposed restricted area lies to the west of V-305 and does not
interfere with the centerline of the airway, IFR aircraft flying on V-
305 at 3,000 feet MSL and 4,000 feet MSL would be impacted when the
proposed R-3404 is active. However, as mentioned previously, these
aircraft could easily be vectored by air traffic control to remain
clear of the proposed restricted area with minimal impact. With the 8
NM airway width of V-305, VFR aircraft following the Federal airway
would not be required to leave the lateral confines of the airway to
avoid the proposed expansion of R-3404. As mentioned above, they could
easily circumnavigate the 2 NM diameter of the expanded restricted area
to the east and still be following V-305. As a result, realignment of
V-305 is also determined to be unnecessary.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by modifying R-3404 near Crane, IN. The modification centers
the restricted area over NSA Crane's blast area (lat. 38[deg]49'30''
N., long. 86[deg]50'08'' W.), enlarges the restricted area from a \1/2\
NM radius to a 1 NM radius, making the restricted area 2 NM in
diameter; increases the ceiling from 2,500 feet MSL to and including
4,100 feet MSL; and changes the name of the using agency from
``Commanding Officer, Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane, IN'' to ``U.S.
Navy, Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center tenant of NSA
Crane.''
    Section 73.34 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order
7400.8S, effective February 16, 2010.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies R-3404, Crane, IN., for the protection of
nonparticipating aircraft during the disposal of a variety of types of
ordnance.

Environmental Review

    Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and other applicable law,
the U.S. Navy prepared and published a Final Environmental Assessment
(FEA) in June 2008 that analyzed the potential for environmental
impacts associated with the proposed NSA Crane and Naval Surface
Warfare Center (NSWC) Glendora Lake Test Facility requirements. In July
2009, the U.S. Navy issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
based on the results of the FEA. In accordance with applicable CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 1501.6) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between FAA and Department of

Defense (DOD) dated October 2005, the FAA was a cooperating agency on
the FEA.
    The FAA has conducted an independent review of the FEA and is
adopting the FEA for this action pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3(a) and (c)
and has issued an Adoption of FEA and FONSI/Record of Decision (ROD)
dated May 2010. This final rule, which increases the vertical limit and
lateral boundary of R-3404, will not result in significant
environmental impacts. A copy of the FAA Adoption of FEA and FONSI/ROD
has been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.34  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.34 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-3404 Crane, IN [Revised]

    Boundaries. That airspace within a 1 NM radius of lat.
38[deg]49'30'' N., long. 86[deg]50'08'' W.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to and including 4,100 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, daily from May 1 through
and including November 1. Other times by NOTAM 24 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Terre Haute ATCT.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center tenant of NSA Crane.

    Issued in Washington, DC, July 16, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-17951 Filed 7-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20711-20714]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08043]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77508; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes in
Connection With the Operation of the Exchange's Equity Options Platform

April 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 24, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to make a modification to Rule 21.1
(Definitions) in connection with the operation of the attribution
feature of EDGX Options, as described below. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to adopt definitions of ``Priority Customer'' and ``Priority
Customer Order'' in Rule 16.1 and to use such definitions throughout
Rules 21.8, 21.10 and 21.15. Finally, the Exchange also proposes
related changes to Rules 20.6 and 21.8.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As further described below, the Exchange is proposing to modify
Rule 21.1(c) to remove the limitation related to Customer orders to
allow such orders to be Attributable Orders (as such terms are defined
below). In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt definitions of
``Priority Customer'' and ``Priority Customer Order'' in Rule 16.1 and
to use such definitions throughout Rules 21.8, 21.10 and 21.15.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes related changes to Rules 20.6 and
21.8.
Attributable Orders
    The Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 21.1, Definitions, which
sets forth the various definitions applicable to the operation of the
EDGX Options platform, including order types and order type modifiers
accepted by EDGX Options. As set forth in Rule 21.1, an order can be
attributed on EDGX Options, meaning that such order is displayed with
not only a price and size but also a User's \5\ market participant
identifier, or MPID (such order an ``Attributable Order'').
Alternatively, a User may also submit an order that is designated for
display on an anonymous basis, a ``Non-Attributable Order.'' In
addition to attribution, as discussed in Rule 21.1, Exchange Rule
21.15(c) states that the Exchange will indicate on OPRA when there is
``Customer'' (the definition of which is described below) interest on
EDGX Options and will identify Customer orders and trades as such on
the Exchange's proprietary data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term User is defined in Rule 1.5(ee) as ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the Exchange modified Rule 21.1(c) to limit the use of
Attributable Orders to non-Customers, thereby eliminating the ability
for a Customer Order to also be an Attributable Order.\6\ Thus, Rule
21.1(c) states that all non-Customer Orders shall be treated as
Attributable Orders unless a User has entered instructions to treat
such orders as Non-Attributable Orders. Further, Rule 21.1(c) states
that all Customer Orders are treated as Non-Attributable Orders. The
Exchange did not make the change set forth above due to concerns with
respect to Customer orders being entered as Attributable Orders but
rather due to system limitations in supporting both the attribution
feature and the identification of Customer orders as such. The Exchange
is now able to accept a Customer order that is both identified as such
and attributed to a specified MPID. The Exchange therefore proposes to
modify Rule 21.1(c) to remove the limitation related to Customer orders
to allow such orders to be Attributable Orders. The Exchange notes that
this proposed change will return the Exchange's rules to their prior
form, by accepting Attributable Orders regardless of the capacity
designated on the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77036 (February 2,
2016), 81 FR 6552 (February 8, 2016) (SR-EDGX-2016-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition and Use of Term ``Priority Customer'' and ``Priority
Customer Order''
    In addition to the change described above, the Exchange proposes
changes to Rules 16.1 to adopt definitions of ``Priority Customer'' and
``Priority Customer Order'' in Rule 16.1 and to use such definitions
throughout Rules 21.8, 21.10 and 21.15. Specifically, in such Rules,
the Exchange proposes to use the terms ``Priority Customer'' and
``Priority Customer Order'', respectively, in place of the terms
``Customer'' and ``Customer Order''. As proposed, a Priority Customer
would mean any person or entity that is not: (A) A broker or dealer in
securities; or (B) a Professional (as defined below). In turn, a
Priority Customer Order would means an order for the account of a
Priority Customer. The proposed definitions are similar to and based on
the definitions of the same terms set forth in MIAX Rule 100. The
Exchange proposes to adopt these new definitions in new paragraph
(a)(45) and to re-number existing paragraphs (a)(45) through (a)(47) as
paragraphs (a)(46) through (a)(48). In addition, because the defined
term ``Public Customer Order'' is not currently utilized in Exchange
Rules, the Exchange proposes to delete this definition, which is
currently contained in paragraph (a)(48).
    Pursuant to Rule 16.1(a)(19) a ``Customer'' is defined as a Public
Customer or a broker-dealer. Under Rule 16.1(a)(47), a ``Public
Customer'' is defined as a person that is not a broker or dealer in
securities (``broker-dealer''). The Exchange separately defines a
``Professional'' as any person or entity that (A) is not a broker or
dealer in securities, and (B) places more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). The Exchange proposes to adopt the definition of
Priority Customer to exclude both broker-dealers and Professionals.
This change is consistent with the Exchange's fee schedule, which
already excludes Professionals from the definition of the term Customer
for purposes of pricing on the Exchange.\7\ This change is also
consistent Exchange Rule 20.6(a)(1) \8\ and with the rules of other
options exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the EDGX Options fee schedule available at: http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/edgx. As defined on the fee
schedule, a ``Customer'' is synonymous with the proposed term
Priority Customer in the Exchange's Rules as the definition excludes
both broker dealers and Professionals as defined in EDGX Rule 16.1.
    \8\ Rule 20.6(a)(1) similarly defines a Customer as a party
other than a broker-dealer or Professional Customer. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 20.6(a)(1) to instead refer to a
``Professional'' as discussed below.
    \9\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 100, Definitions, which defines a
``Priority Customer,'' by excluding both broker dealers and
customers who do not meet the criteria generally established by
options exchanges to qualify as a Professional (i.e., 390 orders in
listed options per day); see also ISE Rule 100(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify Rules 21.8, 21.10, and
21.15 to refer to ``Priority Customer'' rather than ``Customer'' and
``Priority Customer Order'' rather than ``Customer Order'', to more
closely reflect the Exchange's current implementation of the Rules,
which follows the definition of Customer on the Exchange's fee schedule
and in Rule 20.6(a)(1) by excluding broker-dealers and Professionals.
As noted above, the Exchange is also proposing to replace the phrase
``Customer Order'', or in some instances ``Customer order,'' with the
phrase ``Priority Customer Order''.
    The Exchange believes that each of these changes will more closely
align the Exchange's rules with the Exchange's implementation of the
Rules and the rules of other options exchanges.\10\ The Exchange
believes that the original discrepancy was based in

part on the use of the general term ``Customer'' in other Exchange
Rules and on the Exchange's fee schedule as noted above, which in such
other contexts mirrors the definition of Priority Customer, as
proposed.\11\ The Exchange also believes that the intended application
of the term Customer in Chapter 21 of the Exchange's rules is also
clear. In particular, the Exchange's priority rule, Rule 21.8(e),
explicitly refers to ``non-Customers'' as ``including Professional
Customers'' when it discusses the priority algorithm that applies after
execution of Customer (to be re-designated as ``Priority Customer'')
orders. Thus, the change from Customer to Priority Customer in Rule
21.8, 21.10 and 21.15 will conform the Exchange's Rules to the current
implementation by using a defined term that excludes broker-dealers and
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., MIAX Rules 514, which closely resembles Exchange
Rules 21.8 and uses the term Priority Customer, a term equivalent to
the Exchange's proposed definition of Priority Customer.
    \11\ See supra, notes 6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Changes
    To ensure clarity, the Exchange proposes related changes to Rule
21.8(d)(1) and Rule 21.8(e). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
restate the priority of Priority Customers as priority ``over orders on
behalf of all other types of participants'' and to define all such
other participants as non-Customers. As above, this change conforms the
Rule to the Exchange's implementation of the Rule as well as the way
that the Exchange believes the Rule was proposed and approved when read
in light of Rule 21.8(e). The Exchange believes that the amended Rule,
however, sets forth in a more clear fashion the fact that all other
participants other than Priority Customers, including Professionals and
broker-dealers, are considered as non-Customers for purposes of the
Rule. Based on this proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to
remove the reference to ``non-Customers, including Professional
Customers'' in Rule 21.8(e) and to instead refer to the definition of
non-Customer that is proposed to be added to Rule 21.8(d)(1).
    In addition to the proposed changes to utilize the term Priority
Customer instead of Customer and the term Priority Customer Order
instead of Customer Order in the Rules listed above, the Exchange also
proposes to modify Rule 20.6(a)(1) to use the defined term of
``Professional'' rather than the term ``Professional Customer,'' which
is not defined in Rule 16.1.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to accept
Attributable Orders from all market participants, including Priority
Customers, while also designating Priority Customer orders as such on
applicable data feeds. As set forth above, the Exchange recently
limited the use of Attributable Orders to non-Customers due to systems
limitations but is now proposing to remove this limitation. The
Exchange is therefore seeking to re-introduce the feature that was
originally intended in connection with the launch of EDGX Options. The
proposed rule change will also achieve consistency with respect to the
use of the term ``Priority Customer'' and ``Priority Customer Order''
both internally in aligning with the implementation of such Rules as
well as with the rules of other options exchanges. As set forth above,
each of the changes proposed above will align the Exchange's Rules with
the current implementation of the Rules but will do so in a way that
will avoid confusion regarding the application of the definitions used
in such Rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is
consistent with the Act for the reasons set forth above.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended to make a modification to the Exchange's attribution offering
to again permit Attributable Orders on behalf of all market
participants, including Priority Customers. As noted above, this was
the original intent when the Exchange's rules for EDGX Options were
originally approved. The Exchange does not believe that such proposal,
or the proposal to adopt the definitions of Priority Customer and
Priority Customer Order as described above, will result in rules that
are different than the rules of other options exchanges but rather that
such rules will be better aligned with the implementation of the
Exchange's Rules as well as the rules of other options exchanges.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
\16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is appropriate because it
will allow the Exchange to immediately offer the originally intended
attribution feature by permitting orders from all types of market
participants to be attributable orders. Further, the Commission
believes that the adoption of the terms ``Priority Customer'' and
``Priority

Customer Order'' and the use of such terms as proposed will help to
avoid confusion by participants on EDGX Options by aligning the
Exchange's rules with the rules of other options exchanges. Thus, the
proposed definitions are similar to existing rules of other options
exchanges and do not raise any new policy issues. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\18\ The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-03 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-BatsEDGX-2016-03. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2016-03 and should
be submitted on or before April 29, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-08043 Filed 4-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P