[Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 44374-44375]
[DOCID:fr28au09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Blood Establishment Computer Software: Understanding What to
Include in a 510(k) Submission; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Blood Establishment Computer Software:
Understanding What to Include in a 510(k) Submission.'' The purpose of
the public workshop is to educate industry on the laws and regulations
for medical devices that are applicable to Blood Establishment Computer
Software (BECS), including requirements for the content of a 510(k)
submission. The public workshop will feature presentations and panel
discussions led by FDA and other experts in software quality
engineering.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on November 4,
2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and November 5, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to
12 noon.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at The Universities at
Shady Grove Conference Center, Bldg. II, multipurpose room, 9630
Gudelsky Dr., Rockville, MD 20850.
    Contact Person: Rhonda Dawson, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (HFM-302), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike,
suite 550N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Mail, fax, or e-mail your registration information
(including name, title, firm name, address, telephone, and fax numbers)
to the contact person by October 16, 2009. There is no registration fee
for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because
seating is limited. Registration on the day of the public workshop will
be provided on a space available basis beginning at 7:30 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Rhonda Dawson (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BECS is a device used in the prevention of
disease in humans, by identifying unsuitable donors and preventing the
release of infectious or otherwise harmful blood and blood components
for transfusion or for further manufacturing use. Facilities that
manufacture and distribute BECS are subject to device provisions of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), including premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and
applicable regulations at 21 CFR 807, subpart E. The public workshop
will consist of a series of presentations, question-and-answer
sessions, and a panel discussion on the following topics:
     The history and legal framework of BECS regulation in the
United States;
     Content of 510(k) submissions, applicable regulations, and
guidance;
     Common challenges in obtaining 510(k) clearance;
     FDA-recognized software standards;
     General software quality engineering;
     Transfusion safety management systems (blood
administration software);
     Virtualization; and
     Wireless technology.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop may be requested in
writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857,

approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10
cents per page. A transcript of the public workshop will be available
on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/TranscriptsMinutes/default.htm.

    Dated: August 21, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-20781 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34061-34063]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0315]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River, Inner Harbor;
Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone
encompassing certain waters of the Patapsco River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
a fireworks display launched from a barge located within the Inner
Harbor at Baltimore, MD, on July 2, 2015. This safety zone is intended
to protect the maritime public in a portion of the Patapsco River.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July
2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0315]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 8, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River, Inner
Harbor; Baltimore, MD'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 26511). We
received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held. The permanent safety zones listed in the
Table to 33 CFR 165.506 do not apply to this event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Event planners did not provide the
Coast Guard adequate advance notice of the event to allow 30 days after
publication with an appropriate period for public comment. Notice for
this event was submitted to the Coast Guard on April 14, 2015.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.
Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the
navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated
with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The
purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a
fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the
potential hazards associated with a

fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This
rule is needed to ensure safety on the waterway before, during and
after the scheduled event.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.
    During the drafting of this rule, the Coast Guard became aware that
the regulatory text published in the NPRM, describing the area of the
safety zone as all waters of the Patapsco River within a 300 yards
radius of a fireworks discharge barge, is not correct. The required
area of the safety zone is less than that published in the NPRM. This
rule corrects the area of the safety zone, as all waters of the
Patapsco River within a 100 yards radius of a fireworks discharge
barge.

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 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 those Orders.
    Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the
effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) The
safety zone will only be in effect from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on
July 2, 2015, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and
(iii) although the safety zone will apply to certain portions of the
Inner Harbor, smaller vessel traffic will be able to transit safely
around the safety zone.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate
or transit through or within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the
enforcement period.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated under
paragraph D.1., Regulatory Planning and Review.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule affects 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,
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 rule will not call for a 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 determined
that 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 establishing a temporary safety zone
for a fireworks display. The fireworks are launched from navigable
waters of the United States and may negatively impact the safety or
other interests of waterway users and near shore activities in the
event area. The activity includes fireworks launched from barges near
the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a
safety buffer to protect the public from fireworks fallouts and
premature detonations. This action is necessary to protect persons and
property during the project. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0315 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0315  Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River,
Inner Harbor; Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Patapsco River, within a 100 yards radius of a fireworks discharge
barge in approximate position latitude 39[deg]16'56'' N., longitude
076[deg]36'19'' W., located in the Inner Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland.
All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0315.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore. All
vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented
are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives
can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing
this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16
(156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other
Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative and proceed as directed while within the
zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2015.

    Dated: May 29, 2015.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2015-14633 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20743-20744]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of a previously approved information collection
and its expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period was published on January 22, 2008 [73 FR 3800-3801].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Culbreath at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Room W51-204, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Generic Clearance for Customer Surveys.
    OMB Number: 2127-0579.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Executive Order 12862 mandates that agencies survey their
customers to identify the kind and quality of services they want and
their level of satisfaction with existing services. Other requirements
include the Governmental Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993
which promotes a new focus on results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction. NHTSA will use surveys of the public and other external
stakeholders to gather data as one input to decision-making on how to
better meet the goal of improving safety on the nation's highways. The
data gathered on public expectations, NHTSA's products and services,
along with specific information on motor vehicle crash related issues,
will be used by the agency to better structure its processes and
products, forecast safety trends and achieve the agency's goals.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households are primary survey
respondents. Businesses or other for-profit organizations, not-for-
profit institutions, Federal agencies, and State, local or tribal
governments are other possible survey respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,468.
    Addresses: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk
Officer.
    Comments are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of

the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2008.
Margaret O'Brien,
Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-8102 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68882-68883]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-48]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or 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, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0954 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa White, ANM-113,
Standardization Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(425) 227-2956; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Andrea Copeland, ARM-208, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 267-8081.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5, 2012.
Ida M. Klepper,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0954.
    Petitioner: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.562 and 25.785(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks exemption from
14 CFR 25.562 and 25.785(b) to permit use of single and multiple-place
side-facing divans in its Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes operated in
private use.

[FR Doc. 2012-27518 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69752-69753]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24087]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0555; FRL-9953-60-Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nebraska
Air Quality Regulations and State Operating Permit Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Nebraska. This proposed action will amend the SIP to include revisions
to title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, chapter 5,
``Operating Permits--When Required''; chapter 9, ``General Operating
Permits for Class I and II Sources''; chapter 22, ``Incinerators;
Emission Standards''; Chapter 30, ``Open Fires''; and chapter 34
``Emission Sources; Testing; Monitoring''. These revisions were
requested by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) in
three submittals, submitted on May 1,

2003, November 8, 2011, and July 14, 2014. The May 1, 2003, submittal
revised chapters 5 and 9, to address changes in regard to the permits-
by-rule provisions of Title 129. The November 8, 2011, submittal allows
for the issuance of multiple operating permits to major sources through
revisions to chapter 5. In addition, revisions to chapters 22 and 30
encourage the use of air curtain incinerators over open burning; and
changes to chapter 34 clarify the authority of NDEQ to order emission
sources to do testing when NDEQ deems it necessary. The July 14, 2014,
submittal further revises chapter 34, by updating the reference to
allowable test methods for evaluating solid waste, changing the amount
of time allowed to submit test results, and allowing NDEQ to approve a
request for testing with less than 30 days notification. For additional
information on the revisions to chapters 5, 9, 22, 30 and 34 see the
detailed discussion table in the docket.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0555, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Crable, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Nebraska. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's
SIP revision(s) in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons
for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive
no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed
rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments
in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not
intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 27, 2016.
Mike Brincks,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2016-24087 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29726-29730]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66985; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols
and Equity Options Fees

May 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on May 1, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I, entitled ``Rebates and
Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols'' and Section
II, entitled ``Equity Options Fees'' \3\ to amend various fees and
rebates within those sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Equity options fees include options overlying equities,
ETFs, ETNs, indexes and HOLDRS which are Multiply Listed, except
SOX, HGX and OSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes changes to Sections I and II of the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule to: (1) Amend the Monthly Firm Fee Cap; (2)
eliminate a Service Fee applicable to Firms who have reached the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap; and (3) amend Qualified Contingent Cross fees and
rebates. The Exchange also proposes to amend Section II to: (1) Adopt a
fee reduction for Firm electronic orders in Penny and non-Penny Pilot
Options; \4\ and (2) amend the Customer rebate paid for certain
electronically-delivered Customer orders. The Exchange believes that
the amendments described above would incentivize Firms to transact a
greater number of orders at the Exchange by eliminating the Service Fee
applicable to Firms, reducing the QCC Service Fee and providing an
opportunity to reduce Section II fees in lieu of the elimination of
electronic orders from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. The Exchange believes
that the amended rebates applicable to QCC Orders would continue to
incentivize members to transact QCC Orders. Finally, the Exchange is
amending the Customer rebates on certain Penny Pilot and non-Penny
Pilot Orders to attract additional Customer order flow, which should
benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Non-Penny refers to options classes not in the Penny Pilot.
The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007; and in October
2009, it was expanded and extended through June 30, 2012. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR
4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing and
approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny Pilot);
60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009) (SR-Phlx-
2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1, 2010), 75
FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
62028 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-65)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five
classes to Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR 47664 (August
6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-103) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 63395
(November 30, 2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-
167) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending the
Penny Pilot); and 65976 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79247 (December
21, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-172) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot). See also Exchange Rule
1034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Firm Fee Cap and Service Fee

    Currently, Firms are subject to a maximum fee of $75,000 (``Monthly
Firm Fee Cap''). Firm equity option transaction fees and QCC
Transaction Fees, in the aggregate, for one billing month may not
exceed the Monthly Firm Fee Cap per member organization when such
members are trading in their own proprietary account. All dividend,\5\
merger \6\ or short stock interest strategy \7\ and executions subject
to the Reversal and Conversion Cap \8\ are excluded from the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap.\9\ The Firm equity options transaction fees are waived
for members executing facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule
1064 when such members are trading in their own proprietary account
(including FLEX and Cabinet equity options transaction fees).\10\ QCC
Transaction Fees are included in the calculation of the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \6\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \7\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \8\ Market Maker, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer equity
options transaction fees are capped at $1,000 per day for reversal
and conversion strategies executed on the same trading day in the
same options class.
    \9\ The Monthly Firm Fee Cap is applicable to both Sections I
and II of the Pricing Schedule.
    \10\ Member organizations must notify the Exchange in writing of
all accounts in which the member is not trading in its own
proprietary account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Monthly Firm Fee Cap to exclude
electronic orders. In other words, only Firm non-electronic equity
option transaction fees and QCC Transaction Fees (electronic and non-
electronic) in the aggregate, for one billing month may not exceed the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap per member organization when such members are
trading in their own proprietary account. The exclusions and waivers
currently noted in the Pricing

Schedule related to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap would remain without
change.
    Additionally, the Exchange currently assesses Firms that (i) are on
the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer
order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap a $0.07 per
contract fee, excluding PIXL Orders.\11\ The Exchange proposes to
eliminate this $0.07 per contract Service Fee as applicable to the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``A member may electronically submit for execution an order
it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-
dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order (except as provided in Rule
1080(n)(i)(E)) it represents as agent (``Initiating Order'')
provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic execution into the
PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange Rule
1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualified Contingent Cross Orders

    Currently, the Exchange assesses Market Makers,\12\
Professionals,\13\ Firms and Broker-Dealers a QCC Transaction Fee of
$0.20 per contract. QCC Transaction Fees apply to both electronic QCC
Orders (``eQCC'') \14\ and Floor QCC Orders \15\ (collectively ``QCC
Orders''). Today, the Exchange offers a rebate of $0.07 per contract on
all qualifying executed QCC orders up to 1,000,000 contracts in a
month, except where the transaction is either: (i) Customer-to-
Customer; or (ii) a dividend, merger or short stock interest strategy
and executions subject to the Reversal and Conversion Cap. If a member
exceeds 1,000,000 contracts in a month of qualifying executed QCC
Orders, a $0.11 rebate is paid on all qualifying executed QCC Orders,
as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in
1064(e), in that month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Specialists (see Rule 1020) and
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') (Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii),
which includes Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs'') (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). Directed Participants are also Market Makers.
    \13\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \14\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at
least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS).
    \15\ A Floor QCC Order must: (i) Be for at least 1,000
contracts, (ii) meet the six requirements of Rule 1080(o)(3) which
are modeled on the QCT Exemption, (iii) be executed at a price at or
between the National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO''); and (iv) be
rejected if a Customer order is resting on the Exchange book at the
same price. In order to satisfy the 1,000-contract requirement, a
Floor QCC Order must be for 1,000 contracts and could not be, for
example, two 500-contract orders or two 500-contract legs. See Rule
1064(e). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64688 (June
16, 2011), 76 FR 36606 (June 22, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the current QCC Order rebates of
$0.07 per contract and $0.11 per contract by eliminating those rebates
and replacing those rebates with a tiered rebate schedule as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Rebate per
                         Threshold                             contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 199,999 contracts in a month..........................        $0.00
200,000 to 499,999 contracts in a month....................         0.01
500,000 to 699,999 contracts in a month....................         0.05
700,000 to 999,999 contracts in a month....................         0.07
Over 1,000,000 contracts in a month........................         0.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exclusions noted in the Pricing Schedule applicable to QCC
rebates would continue to apply.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the current QCC
Service Fee applicable to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Currently, a
Service Fee of $0.07 per side is assessed once a Firm has reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap. This $0.07 Service Fee will apply once a Firm
has reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. This $0.07 Service Fee will apply
to every contract side of the QCC Order, as defined in Exchange Rule
1080(o) and Floor QCC Order, as defined in Exchange Rule 1064(e), after
a Firm has reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.\16\ The Exchange proposes
to decrease this Service Fee from $0.07 per side to $0.01 per side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Service Fee is not assessed to a Firm that does not
reach the Monthly Firm Fee Cap in a particular calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firm Electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and Non-
Penny Pilot Options

    The Exchange proposes to decrease the Firm electronic Options
Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options by
reducing the applicable Options Transactions Charges to $.11 per
contract if a Firm executed greater than 750,000 electronically-
delivered contracts a month in Penny Pilot or non-Penny Pilot Options,
excluding Select Symbols. Currently Firms are assessed an electronic
Options Transaction Charge for Penny Pilot options of $.25 per contract
and an electronic Options Transaction Charge for non-Penny Pilot
options of $.40 per contract. For example, if a Firm transacted greater
than 750,000 contracts a month in Penny Pilot or non-Penny Pilot
Options, then the Firm would be assessed an Options Transaction Charge
of $.11 per contract for all Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options in
that given month.

Customer Rebate

    The Exchange proposes to amend the applicability of a Customer
rebate which is offered today for members executing electronically-
delivered Customer orders in Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
Currently when a member transacts an average daily volume of 50,000
Customer contracts or greater in a given month the member is entitled
to a rebate of $0.07 per contract. If the member qualified for the
$0.07 rebate and added liquidity in a non-Penny Pilot Option the member
would be eligible for an additional $0.03 per contract rebate for all
qualifying Customer orders in a given month.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ PIXL Orders and QCC Orders are not eligible for the rebate
and are excluded from the calculation of the average daily volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to continue to offer a rebate of $.07 per
contract for members executing electronically-delivered Customer orders
when a member transacts an average daily volume of 50,000 Customer
contracts or greater in a given month. The Exchange is proposing to
amend the applicability of the additional rebate of $0.03 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to pay the additional rebate of $0.03 per
contract to members for those electronically-delivered Customer orders
that qualified for the $0.07 rebate; and added liquidity in a Simple
order in a non-Penny Pilot Option or added or removed liquidity,
including auctions, in a Complex Order in a Penny Pilot Option.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section II rebates and fees apply to both Simple and
Complex Orders. A Complex Order is any order involving the
simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options
series in the same underlying security, priced at a net debit or
credit based on the relative prices of the individual components,
for the same account, for the purpose of executing a particular
investment strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a
stock-option order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number
of units of an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'')
coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See
Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .08(a)(i).

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

Conforming Amendments

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Section
I to amend text related to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap to correspond to
the amended language in Section II by qualifying that the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap will apply to non-electronic equity option transactions for
Section I and Section II symbols as well as QCC electronic and non-
electronic transactions. The Exchange is proposing to delete repetitive
text in Section II \19\ and simply state that the QCC Transaction fees
and rebates, defined in Section II, are applicable to Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission notes that the deleted text appeared in
Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \20\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \21\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly Firm Fee Cap, Firm Volume Discount and Service Fees

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap to exclude electronic equity option transactions is reasonable
because the Exchange seeks to incentivize Firms in other ways that it
believes would encourage Firms to transact more volume on the Exchange.
In lieu of offering Firms a cap on electronic equity option transaction
fees the Exchange is seeking to remain competitive with other options
exchanges by amending the application of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and
reducing the QCC Service Fee \22\ from $0.07 to $0.01 per side. The
Exchange desires to continue to incentivize Firms to transact
electronic orders, by providing Firms with an opportunity to pay lower
fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule by offering a reduction of
Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and non-
Penny Pilot Options, provided the Firm has volume greater than 750,000
electronically-delivered contracts in a month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The QCC Service Fee is applicable once the Firm has reached
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to offer lower transaction fees in Section II of the
Pricing Schedule, in lieu of a cap on electronic equity option
transactions, and to continue to offer the cap for non-electronic
transactions, including electronic and non-electronic QCC Transactions.
Firms will continue to be rewarded in terms of a cap on non-electronic
equity option transactions and QCC Transactions, which represents the
majority of Firm executions and would be able to achieve potentially
greater per contract discounts from the proposed incentive offered for
equity option transactions in Section II. Further, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
exclude Firm electronic equity option transactions from the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap, because a Firm transacting electronic orders would still
be able to include electronic (and non-electronic) QCC transactions in
the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and would also have the opportunity to reduce
Section II Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot
and non-Penny Pilot Options if the Firm achieved a certain volume in a
month.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the QCC Service
Fee applicable to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, once a Firm has reached the
Monthly Firm Fee Cap, from $0.07 per side to $0.01 per contract side is
reasonable because the Exchange will no longer apply the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap as broadly, including both electronic and non-electronic equity
option orders, but rather will only apply the Cap to non-electronic
equity option transactions and QCC Transactions. The Exchange does not
believe it is necessary to assess a $0.07 per side Service Fee on QCC
Transactions at this time to recoup costs, but instead believes it is
reasonable to assess Firms a $0.01 per contract QCC Service Fee, once
Firms have reach the Monthly Firm Fee Cap, in order to recoup costs.
This fee is comparable to the QCC Service Fee assessed by the
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce the QCC
Service Fee applicable to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap from $0.07 per side
to $0.01 per contract side, once a Firm has reached the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
reduction will be uniformly applied to all Firms transacting QCC Orders
and exceeding the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. The QCC Service Fee of $0.01
per side is proposed to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange to offer
this capability including trade matching and processing, post trade
allocation, submission for clearing and customer service activities
related to trading activity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that reducing the QCC Service Fee applicable
to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap from $0.07 per side to $0.01 per side, once
the Firm has reached the Monthly Firm fee Cap is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory when compared to the Monthly Market Maker Cap
because the Monthly Market Maker Cap is applicable to all equity
options transaction fees and QCC Transaction Fees while the Monthly
Firm Fee Cap would apply to non-electronic equity option transaction
fees and QCC Transaction Fees. The corresponding reduction to the QCC
Service Fee is related to the proposed amendment which would not
include electronic equity option transaction fees in the Monthly Firm
Fee Cap.
    Additionally, the Exchange is eliminating the $0.07 Service Fee for
Firms that are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and
executed Customer order. The Exchange believes that its proposal to
eliminate the $0.07 Service Fee for Firms that are on the contra-side
of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and have
reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is reasonable because the Exchange is
amending the applicability of the Monthly Firm Fee Cap to apply to non-
electronic transactions and QCC Transactions, excluding electronic
equity option transactions.\24\ The Exchange believes that its proposal
to eliminate the $0.07 Service Fee for Firms that are on the contra-
side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order and
have reached the Monthly Firm Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be uniformly applied to all participants
that qualify for the Service Fee. Further, the elimination of the
Service Fee is related to the proposed amendment to exclude electronic
equity option transaction fees from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. The
Exchange believes that eliminating the Service Fee is consistent with
the proposed amendment to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and its
applicability to electronically-delivered orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission notes that both electronic and manual QCC
Transactions are included in the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualified Contingent Cross Orders Rebate Program

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the current
rebates applicable to QCC Orders by replacing the current $0.07 rebate
for all

qualifying executed QCC Orders up to 1,000,000 contracts in a month
with certain exceptions or the $0.11 per contract rebate for all
qualifying executed QCC Orders over 1,000,000 with a tiered rebate
schedule for QCC Orders is reasonable because the Exchange believes
that the tiered schedule would continue to incentivize members. Also,
the rebate structure for QCC Orders is similar to rebates at ISE.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the current
rebates applicable to QCC Orders by replacing the current $0.07 rebate
for all qualifying executed QCC Orders up to 1,000,000 contracts in a
month with certain exceptions or the $0.11 per contract rebate for all
qualifying executed QCC Orders over 1,000,000 with a tiered rebate
schedule for QCC Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because all market participants transacting QCC Orders would be subject
to the same rebate schedule.

Customer Rebate

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the applicability of the Section
II Customer rebate of $0.03 for all orders in that month if the member
qualified for the $0.07 rebate and also added liquidity in a Simple
non-Penny Pilot Option or added or removed liquidity in a Complex Order
Penny Pilot Option (including auctions) is reasonable because this
proposed amendment broadens the types of Customer orders that are
potentially eligible for the increased rebate and encourages members to
transact a greater number of Customer orders, which Customer order flow
benefits all market participants. Specifically, creating incentives and
attracting Customer orders to the Exchange benefits all market
participants through increased liquidity at the Exchange.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the applicability of the Section
II Customer rebate of $0.07 for all orders in that month if the member
qualified for the $0.03 rebate and also added liquidity in a Simple
non-Penny Pilot Option or added or removed liquidity in a Complex Order
Penny Pilot Option (including auctions) is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the rebates would uniformly apply to all
Customer transactions that meet the criteria for the rebate. Further,
all market participants may equally qualify for the rebate.

Conforming Amendments

    The Exchange's proposal to conform the text of Section I of the
Pricing Schedule to reflect amendments to text in Section II of the
Pricing Schedule is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the amended text would clearly indicate what
types of fees are included in the Monthly Firm Fee Cap and the
applicability of the QCC Transaction fees and rebates. The Exchange
believes that the proposed text clarifies the text of the Pricing
Schedule.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
nine exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee and rebate
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees
that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange must remain
competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and
therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than
competing venues.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2012-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-61. 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 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; 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-Phlx-2012-61 and should be
submitted on or before June 8, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12036 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40591-40595]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17491]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83810; File No. SR-BX-2018-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate BX
Rule 7039 Into the Market Data Enterprise License Proposed by the
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

August 9, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 27, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This amendment is immediately effective upon filing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed change was initially filed on July 3, 2018,
and became immediately effective on that date. See SR-BX-2018-031,
available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/. It was subsequently
refiled on July 17, 2018. See SR-BX-2018-034, available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/. A firm eligible to purchase the
enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq may purchase it for the month
of July, effective on July 3, 2018, and the monthly fee for the
license will be prorated for the period July 3 through July 31,
2018. Any fees owed by the purchaser of the enterprise license for
the use of NLS Plus on July 1 and July 2, 2018, will also be
prorated accordingly.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate BX Rule 7039 into the market
data enterprise license proposed by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), which is designed to lower fees, reduce administrative
costs, and expand the availability of Nasdaq Last Sale (``NLS'') Plus,
NLS, Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-of-Book products.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to incorporate BX Rule 7039 into the market
data enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq,\4\ which is designed to
lower fees, reduce administrative costs, and expand the availability of
NLS Plus, NLS, Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-of-Book products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NASDAQ-2018-058 (not yet published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS Plus is a comprehensive data feed offered by Nasdaq that allows
distributors to access the three last sale products \5\ offered by
Nasdaq and its affiliated U.S. equity exchanges,\6\ as well as the
FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF''). It provides total
cross-market volume information at the issue level, and reflects the
cumulative consolidated volume of real-time trading activity for Tape
A, B and C securities.\7\ NLS Plus provides Trade Price, Trade Size,
Sale Condition Modifiers, Cumulative Consolidated Market Volume, End of
Day Trade Summary, Adjusted Closing Price, IPO Information, and
Bloomberg ID. Additionally, pertinent regulatory information such as
Market Wide Circuit Breaker, Regulation SHO Short Sale Price Test
Restricted Indicator, Trading Action, and Symbol Directory are
included. NLS Plus may be received by itself or in combination with
NASDAQ Basic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The three last sale products consist of Nasdaq Last Sale, BX
Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. BX Last Sale consists of two data
feeds containing real-time last sale information for trades executed
on the Exchange. ``BX Last Sale for Nasdaq'' contains all
transaction reports for Nasdaq-listed securities. ``BX Last Sale for
NYSE/Amex'' contains all such transaction reports for NYSE- and
Amex-listed securities.
    \6\ The Nasdaq, Inc. U.S. equity markets are the Exchange,
Nasdaq, and Nasdaq PSX.
    \7\ Tape A and Tape B securities are disseminated pursuant to
the Security Industry Automation Corporation's (``SIAC'')
Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or
CTA/CQS (``CTA''). Tape C securities are disseminated pursuant to
the NASDAQ Unlisted Trading Privileges (``UTP'') Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms that receive NLS Plus pay the monthly administrative fees for
BX Last Sale, PSX Last Sale and NLS, and distributors pay a data
consolidation fee of $350 per month.\8\ The Exchange does not currently
charge user fees for BX Last Sale, but firms that receive NLS Plus
would be required to pay any user fees adopted by the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The fee applies to both Internal and External Distributors.
See Rule 7039(b)(1). ``Internal Distributors'' are Distributors that
receive NLS Plus data and then distribute that data to one or more
Subscribers within the Distributor's own entity. ``External
Distributors'' are Distributors that receive NLS Plus data and then
distribute that data to one or more Subscribers outside the
Distributor's own entity.
    \9\ See Rule 7039(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate any fees owed under BX Rule
7039 into the market data enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq, which
is designed to lower fees, reduce administrative costs, and expand the
availability of NLS Plus, NLS, Nasdaq Basic and Nasdaq Depth-of-Book
products. These fees include the monthly administrative fee applicable
to NLS, BX Last Sale and PSX Last Sale, a data consolidation fee for
Internal or External Distributors, and any user fees for BX Last Sale
or PSX Last Sale that may be adopted in the future.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also proposes a technical change to Rule
7039(b)(1) to reflect that BX administrative fees are charged on a
monthly, rather than annual, basis. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79667 (December 22, 2016), 81 FR 96152 (December 29,
2016) (SR-BX-2016-071).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in greater detail under the Nasdaq proposal, the
market data enterprise license for display usage proposed by Nasdaq
will allow Distributors who are broker-dealers or Investment Advisers
\11\ to disseminate these products to a wide audience for a monthly fee
of $600,000, with the opportunity to lower that fee further to $500,000
per month if they contract for twelve months of service in advance. As
explained in greater detail in Nasdaq's filing, the Exchange believes
that the proposed market data enterprise license will reduce exchange
fees, lower administrative costs for distributors, and help expand the
availability of market information to investors, and thereby increase
participation in financial markets. The enterprise license is being
introduced in response to competition from other exchanges,\12\ and
demonstrates both the power and the benefits of the competitive market
to spur innovation and change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Investment Adviser'' is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as ``any person who, for
compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either
directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of
securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or
selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a
regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports
concerning securities . . . .''
    \12\ See, e.g., Enterprise Fee for the Cboe Equities One Feed,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_products/bats_one/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to incorporate BX Last Sale fees into
the Nasdaq market data enterprise license as a means of lowering costs
for all three equity markets. The rationale and support for this
proposal are the same as already set forth by Nasdaq in its companion
proposal.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed market data enterprise license is optional in that no
exchange is required to offer it and distributors are not required to
purchase it. Firms can discontinue its use at any time and for any
reason, and may decide to purchase market data products individually or
substitute products from one exchange with competing products from
other exchanges.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not

designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal to cover BX fees for NLS Plus
within the proposed market data enterprise license will lower fees,
reduce administrative costs, and expand the availability of market data
to retail investors, which the Exchange expects to improve transparency
for financial market participants and lead to increased participation
in financial markets. Discounts for broader dissemination of market
data information have routinely been adopted by exchanges and permitted
by the Commission as equitable allocations of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges.\16\ Distributors will be free to move from the month to
month rate to the annual rate at any time, or from the annual rate to
the monthly rate, with notice, at the expiration of the twelve month
term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For example, the Commission has permitted pricing discounts
for market data under Nasdaq Rules 7023(c) and 7047(b). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82182 (November 30, 2017), 82 FR
57627 (December 6, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-60) (changing an enterprise
fee for NYSE BBO and NYSE Trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal demonstrates the existence of an effective,
competitive market because it resulted from a need to generate
innovative approaches in response to competition from other exchanges
that offer enterprise licenses for market data.\17\ As the Commission
has recognized, ``[i]f competitive forces are operative, the self-
interest of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain
unreasonable or unfair behavior,'' \18\ and ``the existence of
significant competition provides a substantial basis for finding that
the terms of an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair,
reasonable, and not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \19\ The
proposed enterprise license will be subject to significant competition
from other exchanges because each eligible distributor will have the
ability to accept or reject the license depending on whether it will or
will not lower its fees, and because other exchanges will be able to
offer their own competitive responses. As the Commission has held in
the past, the presence of competition provides a substantial basis for
a finding that the proposal will be an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See n.12.
    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed enterprise license will not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Act
does not prohibit all distinctions among customers, but only
discrimination that is unfair, and it is not unfair discrimination to
charge those distributors that are able to reach the largest audiences
of retail investors a lower fee for incremental investors in order to
encourage the widespread distribution of market data. The proposed
change to the BX rule book is designed to incorporate BX Rule 7039 into
the market data enterprise license proposed by Nasdaq. As explained in
the Nasdaq filing, the market data enterprise license will be subject
to significant competition, and that competition will ensure that there
is no unfair discrimination. Each distributor will be able to accept or
reject the license depending on whether it will or will not lower costs
for that particular distributor, and, if the license is not
sufficiently competitive, the Exchange may lose market share.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique
market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would
expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The
Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in
proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating
efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').

    The Commission was speaking to the question of whether broker-
dealers should be subject to a regulatory requirement to purchase data,
such as Depth-of-Book data, that is in excess of the data provided
through the consolidated tape feeds, and the Commission concluded that
the choice should be left to them. Accordingly, Regulation NMS removed
unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell
their own data, thereby advancing the goals of the Act and the
principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market
should determine whether proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
by the market as well.
    The proposed change to the BX rule book is designed to incorporate
BX Rule 7039 into the market data enterprise license proposed by
Nasdaq, and the proposed enterprise license will compete with other
enterprise licenses offered by Nasdaq, underlying fee schedules
promulgated by the Exchange, and enterprise licenses and fee structures
implemented by other exchanges. The enterprise license is a voluntary
product for which market participants can readily find substitutes.
Accordingly, both BX and Nasdaq are constrained from introducing a fee
that would be inequitable or unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal will eliminate BX
fees for NLS Plus as part of a market data enterprise license proposed
by Nasdaq that is intended to lower fees, reduce administrative costs,
and expand the availability of market data to retail investors, which
the Exchange expects to lead to increased participation in financial
markets. It will not impose a burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, but rather will
enhance competition by introducing an innovative fee structure for
market data, lowering prices and enhancing competition.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided.
Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and
market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data.
This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well
as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint

products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform
to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where
the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and
price, and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions,
exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are
valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information
that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making
trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform, the cost of implementing cybersecurity to protect the data
from external threats and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure
its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return
that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from
both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, the operation of the Exchange is characterized by high
fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in
content and content distribution industries such as software, where
developing new software typically requires a large initial investment
(and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once
the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that
software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (e.g.,
if the software can be downloaded over the internet after being
purchased).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is costly for the Exchange to build and maintain a trading
platform, but the incremental cost of trading each additional share on
an existing platform, or distributing an additional instance of data,
is very low. Market information and executions are each produced
jointly (in the sense that the activities of trading and placing orders
are the source of the information that is distributed) and each are
subject to significant scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost
pricing is not feasible because if all sales were priced at the margin,
the Exchange would be unable to defray its platform costs of providing
the joint products. Similarly, data products cannot make use of trade
reports from the TRF without the raw material of the trade reports
themselves, and therefore necessitate the costs of operating,
regulating, and maintaining a trade reporting system, costs that must
be covered through the fees charged for use of the facility and sales
of associated data.
    An exchange's broker-dealer customers view the costs of transaction
executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the
exchange. A broker-dealer will disfavor a particular exchange if the
expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange do not exceed
net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the broker-
dealer chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its
customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the
value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the
cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will
choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct
fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that
broker-dealer decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will
contain less information, because executions of the broker-dealer's
trading activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more
important, the product will be less valuable to that broker-dealer
because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is
directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the
broker-dealer is directing more orders will become correspondingly more
valuable.
    Similarly, vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data
products because they control the primary means of access to end users.
Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For
example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse
to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals impose a discipline by providing
only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute
to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers offer their retail
customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates
sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ,
these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse
to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide
sufficient value. Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary
data products must understand and respond to these varying business
models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data
products successfully. Moreover, the Exchange believes that market data
products can enhance order flow by providing more widespread
distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby
encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access
to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products
to Distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because
the products contain less content.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint
offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price
for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in
lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm
will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse
to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price
of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the
cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will
fall.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Cf. Ohio v. American Express, No. 16-1454 (S. Ct. June 25,
2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1454_5h26.pdf
(recognizing the need to analyze both sides of a two sided platform
market in order to determine its competitiveness).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the level of competition and contestability in the market
is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order
flow, including SRO markets, internalizing broker-dealers and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this
competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to
multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market.
Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports
provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, broker-dealers, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce
proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced
plans to do so, including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE Arca, IEX,
and BATS/Direct Edge.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-036 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-BX-2018-036. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2018-036 and should be submitted on
or before September 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17491 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P