[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12649-12658]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06308]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85429; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rules 900.3NY, 925.1NY, and 971.1NY

March 27, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 14, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to to [sic] amend Rules 900.3NY (Orders
Defined) and 925.1NY (Market Maker Quotes) to add a new order type and
quotation designation and to make conforming changes to Rule 971.1NY
(Single-Leg Electronic Cross Transactions). The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify Rules 900.3NY and 925.1NY
to add a new order type and quotation designation as described herein.
The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to these rules,
as well as to Rule 971.1NY regarding the Customer Best Execution
Auction or CUBE for single-leg options (the ``CUBE Auction'' or
``Auction''), to reflect the impact of the proposed order type and
quotation designation on the auction mechanism.
    The proposed order type and quote designation are substantially
identical to those utilized on NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').\4\
However, in addition to addressing the impact of the proposed changes
on the CUBE Auction (which NYSE Arca does not have), the proposal
differs from the NYSE Arca rules to reflect the Exchange's allocation
rules, which differ from NYSE Arca's price-time priority allocation
scheme. Pursuant to Rule 964NY (Display, Priority and Order
Allocation--Trading Systems), at each price point, the Exchange affords
Customer orders priority over same-priced non-Customer orders.\5\
Specifically, the Exchange ranks and allocates Customer orders at the
same price in time priority and, after all Customer orders are executed
at a price, non-Customer orders at the same price are allocated on a
size pro rata basis.\6\ Aside from the difference in how the repricing
interest is prioritized and allocated on the Exchange, the proposed
order type and quotation designation function the same as on NYSE Arca.
The proposed order type and quote designation are designed to operate
seamlessly with the CUBE Auction as well as the Exchange's Customer and
price-time priority model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 84451 (October 18,
2018), 83 FR 53692 (October 24 2018) (``NYSE Arca Repricing
Notice''); 84737 (``NYSE Arca Repricing Approval Order'') [sic]
(December 6, 2018), 83 FR 63919 (December 12, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-
2018-74) (``NYSE Arca Repricing Approval Order'') (approving
adoption of MMRP, per NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(C) and (a)(4)(B),
and RPNP, per NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-O(p)(1)). The Exchanges notes that
the NYSE Arca Repricing Approval Order also included an order type
and quotation designation that would reprice if it would remove
liquidity (i.e., a RALO and MMALO, respectively), which are not
being proposed by the Exchange.
    \5\ The term ``non-Customers'' includes Market Makers, Firms,
Professional Customers and Non-ATP Holder Market Makers.
    \6\ See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(A) (providing that ``if there is more
than one highest bid for a Customer account or more than one lowest
offer for a Customer account, then such bids or offers,
respectively, will be ranked based on time priority''); and
(b)(2)(B)-(D). Per Rule 964NY(b)(2)(D), for example, ``[i]f there is
more than one highest bid or more than one lowest offer in the
Consolidated Book for the account of a non-Customer, then such bids
or offers will be afforded priority on a `size pro rata' basis, and
will comprise the `size pro rata pool' ''). See also Rule
964NY(b)(3) (setting forth size pro rata allocation method) and (c)
(providing for executions of orders and quotes on the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repricing PNP Order (``RPNP'')
    Rule 900.3NY(p) provides that a PNP (Post No Preference) Order is
eligible to interact solely with interest on the Exchange, will not
route, and will cancel if it locks or crosses the NBBO.\7\ PNP Orders
provide market participants control over how their orders interact with
contra-side liquidity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 900.3NY(p) (providing that a PNP Order ``is a Limit
Order to buy or sell that is to be executed in whole or in part on
the Exchange, and the portion not so executed is to be ranked in the
Consolidated Book, without routing any portion of the order to
another market center; provided, however, the Exchange shall cancel
a PNP Order that would lock or cross the NBBO''). The Exchange
proposes to capitalize the ``Market Center'' as used in paragraph
(p) of the Rule, which is a defined term in Rule 900.2NY(36). See
proposed Rule 900.3NY(p).
    \8\ A PNP Order may also be designated as an Immediate-Or-Cancel
Order (``IOC Order'') and, when such designation is made, the IOC
Order behavior trumps the PNP Order behavior. In other words, the
portion of a PNP IOC Order that is not executed immediately will
cancel rather than potentially be ranked in the Consolidated Book.
The Exchange proposes to modify the definition of a PNP Order to
specify the behavior of a PNP IOC Order. See proposed Rule
900.3NY(p) (providing in relevant part that, ``[a] PNP Order that is
designated as IOC Order will be treated as an IOC Order (per Rule
900.3NY(k)), such that any unexecuted portion shall cancel''). See
also 900.3NY(k) (providing that an IOC Order ``is a Limit Order that
is to be executed in whole or in part on the Exchange as soon as
such order is received, and the portion not so executed is to be
canceled'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add an order type--RPNP--that builds on
the existing PNP Order functionality to allow for repricing (rather
than cancellation) as described below. As proposed, a RPNP is a PNP
Order that would be repriced instead of cancelled after trading with
interest in the Consolidated Book \9\ if it would lock or cross the
NBBO.\10\ As proposed, an RPNP may only be entered as a Day Order.\11\
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 900.3NY(p) to provide that an
RPNP received during pre-open or during a trading halt will be treated
as a PNP Order (i.e., as a Limit Order and will not reprice) for
purposes of participating in opening auctions or re-opening auctions.
This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of NYSE Arca Rule
6.62-O(p) without any differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 900.2NY(14) (defining the Consolidated Book (or
``Book'') as the Exchange's electronic book of limit orders for the
accounts of Customers and broker-dealers, and Quotes with Size, all
of which are ranked and maintained in accordance with the rules of
priority as provided in Rule 964NY).
    \10\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1).
    \11\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1). This proposed rule text is
based on the last sentence of NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-O(p)(1) with a
substantive difference not to reference Reserve Orders, which are
not available on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1)(A) would provide that a RPNP to buy
(sell) that would lock or cross the NBO (NBB) would be displayed at a
price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB). This proposed rule would
further provide that if the NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the display
price of the RPNP to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at which it
is eligible to trade would be continuously adjusted, up (down) to the
limit price of the RPNP.\12\ Proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1)(A)(i) would
provide that a RPNP to buy (sell) that is displayed at a price one MPV
below (above) the NBO (NBB) would be eligible to trade at the NBO
(NBB), up (down) to the limit price of the RPNP; provided, however,
that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock or cross the RPNP's display
price, such RPNP would trade at its display price.\13\ Proposed Rule
900.3NY(p)(1)(A)(ii) would further provide that each time there is an
update to the RPNP's price, the RPNP would be ranked with other
eligible interest at that price, and would trade at each price, to the
extent possible, pursuant to Rule 964NY.\14\ For example, at the same
price (including an updated (re)price), a RPNP submitted on behalf of a
Customer would have first priority over non-Customer orders. The
Exchange believes that this proposed handling of RPNPs would respect
and preserve the Exchange's Customer priority and pro rata allocation
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-
O(p)(1)(A). The proposed RPNP also operates in substantially the
same manner as the Non-Routable Limit Order available on the NYSE
Arca's equities market, which, like the RPNP, reprices if it would
lock or cross a protected quotation of an Away Market or trade
through a protected quotation. See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(e)(1).
    \13\ This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-
O(p)(1)(A)(i) with a substantive difference not to reference that
such orders would trade in time priority behind other eligible
interest displayed at that price because the Exchange operates on a
pro rata allocation model.
    \14\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1)(A)(ii). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-O(p)(1)(A)(ii) with a
substantive difference to cross reference the Exchange's allocation
model under Rule 964NY rather than NYSE Arca's price-time allocation
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid accepting RPNPs priced too far through the NBBO, the
Exchange proposes to limit the extent to which it

would reprice such interest.\15\ As proposed, an incoming RPNP would be
cancelled after trading with eligible interest (if any) if its limit
price to buy (sell) is more than a configurable number of MPVs above
(below) the initial display price (on arrival) of the RPNP. The
Exchange would determine the configurable number of MPVs, which would
be announced by Trader Update.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Rule 900.3NY(p)(1)(B). This proposed rule text
is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.62-O(p)(1)(B) without any differences.
    \16\ For example, in a Penny Pilot issue, if the local best
offer is 0.99 and the away best offer is 1.00 with a configuration
set to 3 MPV, a RPNP to buy at 1.03 or greater would trade with the
local offer at 0.99 and any remaining interest will be cancelled
(because the initial display price would be 0.99 which is 4 MPVs
away from its limit price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed RPNP would give market
participants more flexibility and control over the circumstances under
which their orders trade with contra side-interest, while ensuring that
RPNPs priced too far through the contra-side NBBO would be rejected.
The Exchange believes the proposed RPNP would assist market
participants in maximizing opportunities for execution (as such orders
would reprice rather than reject) while encouraging the provision of
greater liquidity to the market, which would contribute to public price
discovery.
* * * * *
    The following examples illustrate the proposed RPNP order type and
how it would function under the Exchange's allocation model.
RPNP Example 1 (the MPV is $0.01)
BOX 20 x 1.15-1.23 x 20
BD1 B 50 @1.25 RPNP
BD2 B 10 @1.26 RPNP
BD3 B 15 @1.27 RPNP
Specialist \17\ 30 x 1.24-1.30 x10 MMRP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A Specialist is a Market Maker on the Exchange that has
heightened obligations in exchange for certain rights and
privileges. See Rule 927NY. For example, Specialists may receive a
participation entitlement, provided they are quoting at the NBBO.
See, e.g., Rule 964NY(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD4 S 15 Mkt
MM 100 x 1.20-1.25 x 30 MMRP
BD5 S 10 Mkt
Cust6 S 40 Mkt
Expected Result
BOX NBO @1.23
BD1, 2, 3 and Specialist all display @1.22 (priced back one MPV from
the NBO) and are eligible to trade @1.23 due to BOX offer @1.23
BD4 sells 15 to BD1 @1.23 (leaving BD1 with 35)
MM 1.25 offer does not trade (prohibited by BOX offer @1.23)
BD5 sells 10 to BD1 @1.23 (leaving BD1 with 25)
Cust6 sells 25 to BD1 (exhausting BD1), 10 to BD2 (exhausting BD2), 5
to BD3 @1.23 (exhausting Cust6), in price-time priority because BD1,
BD2 and BD3 are trading at an undisplayed price (The Specialist, which
is eligible to trade @1.23 but displayed at 1.22, is not entitled to an
allocation guarantee because it is not quoting (displayed) at the NBBO)
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(C) (regarding Specialist 40%
participation guarantee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RPNP Example 2 (the MPV is $0.01)
BOX 20 x 1.15-1.26 x 20
BD1 B 50 @1.25 RPNP
Cust1 B 10 @1.25 RPNP
BD3 B 15 @1.25 RPNP
Specialist 30 x 1.25-1.30 x 10 MMRP
BD4 S 15 Mkt
BD5 S 10 Mkt
Cust6 S 40 Mkt
Expected Result
BOX NBO @1.26
BD1, Cust1, BD3 and Specialist display @limit price of 1.25 (no need to
reprice because already one MPV away from the NBO) and will trade size
pro rata with Cust priority and Specialist resulting in:
BD4 sells 10 to Cust1, 5 to Specialist @1.25 (Specialist gets 100% of 5
lots or smaller) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 964NY(b)(2)(C)(iv) (providing that ``[f]or all
orders of five (5) contracts or fewer, the Primary Specialist (as
defined in Rule 964.2NY(a)) will be allocated the balance after any
allocation to Customers, not to exceed the size of the Primary
Specialist's quote, provided the Primary Specialist is quoting at
the NBBO, and the order was not originally allocated to a Directed
Order Market Maker'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD5 sells 4 to Specialist @1.25 (i.e., 40%) \20\ and 5 to BD1 and 1 to
BD3 @1.25, pursuant to size pro rata allocation provided for in Rule
964NY(b)(3)
Cust6 sells 16 to Specialist @1.25 (i.e., 40%) \21\ and 18 to BD1 and 6
to BD3 @1.25, pursuant to size pro rata allocation provided for in Rule
964NY(b)(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 18.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker--Repricing Quotation (``MMRP'')
    Current Rule 925.1NY(a) defines Market Maker quotes, including
quotations designated as Market Maker--Light Only (``MMLO''), and
specifies how such quotes are processed when a series is open for
trading. The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 925.1NY(a) to add a new
quote designation--MMRP--to provide market makers with the same
functionality for their quotations as are proposed for orders entered
on the Exchange.\22\ The proposed quotation designation is similar to
how the proposed RPNP would function and would enable Market Makers to
exert greater control over how their quotes would interact with contra-
side liquidity, while affording them more opportunities to provide
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4)(B). This
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(B) and
(a)(4)(B). The Exchange proposes to delete reference to MMLO in
current Rule 925.1NY(a)(3), which would be renumbered as Rule
925.1NY(a)(4), regarding the ``[t]reatment of Market Maker
Quotations,'' as too restrictive in light of the proposed MMRP;
instead, the Exchange proposes to separately describe the treatment
of each quote type when a series is open for trading. See proposed
Rule 925.1NY(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, an incoming or resting quotation designated as MMRP
would never display at a price that locks or crosses the NBBO.\23\
Instead, after trading with interest in the Consolidated Book, an
incoming MMRP to buy (sell) that locks or crosses the NBO (NBB) would
be displayed at a price that is one MPV below (above) the NBO
(NBB).\24\ If the NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the display price of the
MMRP to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at which it is eligible to
trade would be continuously adjusted, up (down) to the MMRP's limit
price.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4)(B). The
Exchange also proposes to replace references to ``another Market
Center'' with ``the NBBO'' to add clarity and consistency to the
Rule. See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(C)(i),
(a)(4)(D)(i)-(ii); see also NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-
O(a)(4)(C)(i),(D)(i)-(ii).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(B). This proposed rule text
is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B) without any differences.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed RPNP, an MMRP to buy (sell) that is
displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) would trade at
the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock
or cross the MMRP's display price, such MMRP will trade at its display
price.\26\ Also consistent with the handling of RPNPs, the Exchange
proposes that each time there is an update to the MMRP's price, the
MMRP would be ranked with other eligible interest at that price, and
would trade at each price, to the extent possible, pursuant to Rule
964NY.\27\ The

Exchange believes that this handling of MMRPs (which is consistent with
the proposed handling of RPNPs) would respect and preserve the Exchange
Customer priority and pro rata allocation model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(B)(i). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B)(i) with a
substantive difference not to reference that such orders would trade
in time priority behind other eligible interest displayed at that
price because the Exchange operates on a pro rata allocation model.
    \27\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(B)(ii). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B)(ii) butcross
references the Exchange's allocation model under Rule 964NY rather
than NYSE Arca's price-time allocation model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that an MMRP may be submitted when a series is
not open for trading (i.e., during pre-open or a trading halt) and such
MMRP would be eligible to participate in the opening auction and re-
opening auction (as applicable) at the limit price of the MMRP.\28\
Such MMRPs would not be repriced as an option series may not open (or
re-open) if a quote is locked or crossed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(5). This proposed rule text is
based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(5) without any differences. The
Exchange also proposes to make clear that ``[a]ll resting quotations
will be cancelled in the event of a trading halt.'' See id.
    \29\ See Rule 952NY(b)(E) (providing in relevant part, that
``[i]f the System does not open a series with an Auction Process,
the System shall open the series for trading after receiving
notification of an initial uncrossed NBBO disseminated by OPRA for
the series . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid accepting MMRPs priced too far through the NBBO, the
Exchange proposes to limit the extent to which it would reprice such
interest. Specifically, an incoming MMRP that has a limit price more
than a configurable number of MPVs above (below) the initial display
price (on arrival) would first trade with marketable interest in the
Consolidated Book up (down) to the NBO (NBB) and any remaining balance
would be cancelled.\30\ Similarly, the Exchange would reject an
incoming MMRP that does not trade (i.e., because there is no marketable
interest in the Consolidated Book) and has a limit price to buy (sell)
that is more than a configurable number of MPVs above (below) the
initial display price (on arrival) of the MMRP.\31\ The Exchange would
determine the applicable number of MPVs and announce the configurable
by Trader Update.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(C)(iii). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C)(iii) without any
differences.
    \31\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(D)(iii). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D)(iii) without any
differences. The Exchange notes that incoming MMRPs that fail the
MPV check would be rejected while similarly-priced RPNPs would be
accepted and then cancelled. The Exchange notes that this is a
distinction without a difference and simply reflects an operational
difference in how the Exchange evaluates these types of interest.
The Exchange also proposes to re-locate text that is currently at
the end of this provision to the beginning, such that the Rules
states that ``[a]n incoming quotation will be rejected, and the
Exchange will cancel the Market Maker's current quotation on the
same side of the market, if:'' as the Exchange believes this would
streamline the Rule making it easier to navigate and understand. See
id. This proposed rule change is also based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-
O(a)(4)(D).
    \32\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY (a)(4)(C)(iii). For example, in a
Penny Pilot issue, if the local best offer is 0.99 and the away best
offer is 1.00 with a configuration set to 3 MPV, a MMRP to buy at
1.03 or greater would trade with the local offer at 0.99 and any
remaining interest will be cancelled (because the initial display
price would be 0.99 which is 4 MPVs away from its limit price).
Because the MMRP is cancelled, the Exchange would also cancel the
opposite-side quote for that Market Maker. See Rule 925.1NY
(a)(4)(B)(or, as renumbered, proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(C))
(providing, ``[w]hen such quantity of an incoming quotation is
cancelled, the Exchange will also cancel the Market Maker's current
quotation on the opposite side of the market''); see also NYSE Arca
Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following trading example illustrates the operation of an MMRP
under the Exchange's allocation model.
MMRP Example (the MPV is $0.01)
MM 10 x 1.24-1.28 x 10
ISE 20 x 1.25-1.32 x 20
BD2 S 100 @1.23 RPNP
MMRP 70 x 1.22-1.23 x 70
BD3 S 50 @1.23 RPNP
ISE Update 0 x 0-1.32 x 20
Expected Result
ISE NBB @1.25
BD2 offer for 100 is eligible to trade @1.25 and will display @1.26
(priced back one MPV from the NBB)
MMRP offer for 70 is eligible to trade @1.25 and will display @1.26
(priced back one MPV from the NBB)
BD3 offer for 50 is eligible to trade @1.25 and will display @1.26
ISE bid update to 0 results in the following size pro rata allocation
(Rule 964NY(b)(3)):
BD2 trades 5 with MM @1.24
MMRP trades 3 with MM @1.24
BD3 trades 2 with MM @1.24
    The Exchange notes that absent the proposed MMRP, incoming quotes
(or portions thereof) would reject or cancel if such quotes locked or
crossed away markets, which aligns with the NMS plan for Options Order
Protection And Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Plan''), to which the
Exchange is a party.\33\ Thus, the Exchange believes that affording
Market Makers the ability to designate quotes as MMRP affords Market
Makers more certainty when providing liquidity, while ensuring that
MMRPs priced too far through the contra-side NBBO would cancel or
reject after trading with any eligible interest on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Plan, dated April 14, 2009, available here, http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/clearing/services/options_order_protection_plan.pdf. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60405 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009)
(File No. 4-546) (order approving the Plan). The Plan obligates the
participating exchanges to provide order protection, including
addressing locked and crossed markets and the potential for trade-
throughs in certain options classes. See id. Consistent with the
Plan, the rules of the Exchange include prohibitions against trade-
throughs and a pattern or practice of displaying certain quotations
that lock or cross away markets. See, e.g., Rules 991NY, 992NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to adding new rule text to describe the function of the
proposed MMRP \34\ into existing rule text, the Exchange also proposes
to streamline Rule 925.1NY, by re-organizing and re-numbering related
text regarding the treatment of untraded incoming quotations.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that ``[a]ny untraded
quantity of an incoming quotation will be added to the Consolidated
Book, except in the circumstances specified below, which result in the
remaining balance being cancelled,'' \35\ including when the incoming
quotation ``is not designated as MMRP'' and locks or crosses the NBBO
and when it is designated as MMLO and locks or crosses undisplayed
interest.\36\ Similarly, the Exchange would modify the rule providing
that an incoming quotation that locks or crosses the NBBO would be
rejected, provided ``it is not designated as MMRP'' and cannot trade
with interest in the Consolidated Book at prices that do not trade
through the NBBO.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4)(B).
    \35\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(C). This rule text is based
on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C) without any differences.
    \36\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(C)(i) and (ii). This
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C)(i)
and (ii) without any differences.
    \37\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(4)(D)(i). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D)(i) without any
differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, to accommodate the new MMRP, the Exchange proposes to re-
organize paragraph (a) of Rule 925.1NY, by re-locating text that a
quote will never route from existing paragraph (a)(3) to paragraph
(a)(2); adding new paragraph (a)(3) to provide that ``[a] Market Maker
may designate a quote as follows''; and re-numbering the balance of the
paragraph to account for such changes.\38\ In addition, as proposed,
the description of the existing quote type MMLO would be re-numbered as
paragraph (a)(3)(A), and the text would be streamlined to provide
simply that ``[o]n arrival, a quotation designated MMLO will trade with
displayed interest in the Consolidated Book only. Once resting, the
MMLO designation no longer applies and such quotation is

eligible to trade with displayed and undisplayed interest.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(2)-(3). This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(2)-(3), however it
differs from NYSE Arca in that the Exchange is not adding a Market
Maker--Add Liquidity Only quotation type. See NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-
O(a)(3)(B).
    \39\ See proposed Rule 925.1NY(a)(3)(A). This proposed rule text
is based on NYSE Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(A) without any differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that this proposal does not relieve a Market
Maker of its continuous quoting or firm quote obligations pursuant to
Rules 925.1NY and 970NY, respectively. Further, the Exchange notes that
Market Makers would still be able to send orders in (and out of)
classes to which they are appointed, as orders are not affected by this
proposal.
RPNP/MMRP and the CUBE Auction
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY, regarding the single-
leg CUBE Auction, to reflect current functionality relating to how the
proposed RPNP/MMRP would potentially interact with a CUBE Auction.\40\
The CUBE Auction is an electronic cross mechanism through which an ATP
Holder (``Initiating Participant'') may initiate a CUBE Auction by
submitting for execution a limit order it represents as agent on behalf
of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (the ``CUBE
Order''). The Initiating Participant, however, must guarantee the
execution of the CUBE Order by submitting a contra-side order (``Contra
Order'') representing principal interest or non-Customer interest it
has solicited to trade solely with the CUBE Order at a single ``stop
price,'' or a range of prices that will either ``auto-match'' all
interest received during the auction or have a price limit on the
matching (i.e., ``auto match limit price'').\41\ Rule 971.1NY(b) sets
for [sic] the conditions that must exist for a CUBE Auction to
commence, including the range of permissible executions and that a CUBE
Order will be rejected if the NBBO is crossed.\42\ The CUBE Auction is
designed to afford price improvement opportunities to CUBE Orders while
interacting seamlessly with the Consolidated Book (i.e., the Auction
should not disrupt the Exchanges' price-time priority model). ATP
Holders may participate in the Auction with RFR Responses received
during the Response Time Interval (``RTI'').\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The Exchange notes that Rule 971.2NY describes the Complex
CUBE Auction which is not implicated by this filing.
    \41\ See Rule 971.1NY(a), (c)(1)(A)-(C).
    \42\ The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY(b)(9) to
reflect current functionality and make clear that a CUBE Order is
today (and will be) rejected if NBBO is ``locked or crossed''
(emphasis added), which adds clarity and transparency to Exchange
rules. See proposed Rule 971.1NY(b)(9).
    \43\ The RTI is subject to a random time period that is no less
than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second. See Rule
971.1NY(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modify Definition of RFR Responses To Include Resting Interest
    Current Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C) provides that RFR Responses include
GTX Orders submitted specifically to interact with the Auction \44\ and
unrelated interest that is on the opposite side of the CUBE Order and
within the range of permissible executions.\45\ Regarding the latter
categories of RFR Responses (i.e., unrelated quotes and orders), the
Exchange proposes to clarify that current CUBE functionality treats
interest ``resting in the Consolidated Book when the Auction
commences'' as an RFR Response, provided the interest is on the
opposite site of the CUBE Order and eligible to participate within the
range of permissible executions specified in Rule 971.1NY(b)(1).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C)(i) (defining GTX Orders as non-
routable order with a time-in-force contingency for the RTI that
will not be displayed on the Consolidated Book and will cancel after
trading (if at all) in the CUBE Auction).
    \45\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C)(ii) (including as RFR Responses
any ``unrelated quotes and orders'' in the same series as, and
opposite side of, the CUBE Order that arrive during the RTI and
eligible to participate within the range of permissible executions
specified in Rule 971.1NY (b)(1)).
    \46\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C)(ii) (regarding
``Unrelated quotes and orders'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change reflects current CUBE Auction functionality:
Currently, standard Market Maker quotes as well as resting PNP Blind
Orders (each a ``PNPB'') which, when undisplayed are not included in
the quoted market, are considered ``unrelated quotes and orders'' for
purposes of Rule 971.1NY(b)(2)(C)(ii).\47\ The proposed change would
also account for the proposed RPNP/MMRP, which like a PNPB, may be
resting undisplayed on the Book at the start of a CUBE Auction at a
price with which a CUBE Order may execute. This proposed amendment is
consistent with existing rule text regarding how the Exchange handles
Customer interest resting at the start of an Auction (which could
include a PNP Blind Order or a proposed RPNP). Specifically, such
resting interest, at a price, gets first priority to trade with the
CUBE Order ahead of Customer interest, at a price, that arrives during
the Auction.\48\ Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed change
reflects current functionality and adds clarity, transparency and
internal consistency to Exchange rules. Moreover, allowing unrelated
quotes and orders resting in the Consolidated Book at the beginning of
the Auction--including eligible PNPBs or the proposed RPNP/MMRPs-- to
interact with the CUBE Auction should increase the number of
participants against which the CUBE Order may be executed, and is
consistent with the primary goal of the CUBE Auction: To maximize price
improvement opportunities for the CUBE Order.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Rule 900.3NY(x) (defining a PNPB (or Post No Preference
Blind) as a Limit Order that is to be executed in whole or in part
on the Exchange, and the portion not so executed is to be ranked in
the Consolidated Book, without routing any portion of the order to
another Market Center; however, if the PNPB locks or crosses the
NBBO, the price and size of the order is not disseminated. Once the
PNPB no longer locks or crosses the NBBO, the price and size will be
disseminated). See Rule 971.1NY(b) (providing that ``[f]or purposes
of determining whether a CUBE Order is eligible to initiate an
Auction,'' references to the NBBO or BBO ``refer to the quoted
market at the time the Auction is initiated'').
    \48\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(A) (providing that ``[a]t each price
level, any Customer orders resting on the Consolidated Book at the
start of the CUBE Auction shall have first priority'' to trade with
the CUBE Order).
    \49\ The Exchange notes that to the extent that an order that
was resting undisplayed at the start of the CUBE Order is eligible
to trade with the CUBE Order, that interest would trade behind
Customer and displayed interest, at a price, so as not to disturb
the Exchange's allocation rules, per proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5),
Order Allocation (as discussed herein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early End Scenarios
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY(c)(4), which
specifies scenarios when a CUBE Auction would conclude early (i.e.,
before the end of the RTI). The purpose of these provisions is to
enable the CUBE Auction to integrate seamlessly within the Exchange's
Consolidated Book. Accordingly, a CUBE Auction will conclude early as a
result of certain events that would otherwise disrupt the priority of
the Auction within the Consolidated Book. Early conclusion allows the
Exchange to appropriately handle unrelated quotes and orders without
the CUBE Auction impacting that handling, and further allows the CUBE
Order, which has been guaranteed an execution, to execute against the
best-priced interest in the Auction.
    Current Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(B) provides that a CUBE Auction will
conclude early if the Exchange receives during the RTI ``an unrelated
quote or order that is on the same side of the market as the CUBE
Order, that is marketable against any RFR Responses or the NBBO (or the
BBO, for a non-routable order) at the time of arrival.'' Because PNP
Orders, although non-routable are, by definition, checked against the
NBBO (not the BBO), the Exchange proposes to modify the rule text to
provide ``or the BBO, for a non-routable order that is not a PNP

Order.'' \50\ The proposed language does not alter the current
operation of this provision--as a same-side PNP Order that is
marketable against the NBBO would cause an early end to the Auction--
but merely clarifies that PNP Orders would differ because they would be
checked against the NBBO, not the BBO. This carve out of PNP Order
would include the proposed RPNP (and a PNPB). Also of note regarding
this early end scenario is the modified definition of RFR Responses to
include eligible interest resting in the Consolidated Book at the start
of an Auction. This modified definition clarifies current functionality
that an Auction may end early if incoming same-side interest is
marketable against interest (i.e., an RFR Response) that may not have
been included in the NBBO or BBO but was resting undisplayed at the
start of the Auction--which could include a proposed RPNP/MMRP or a
PNPB. Thus, this provision, as modified, is consistent with CUBE
functionality and simply updates the rule text to reflect the operation
of PNP Orders and the interest that may cause an early end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(B) (``Same Side Marketable
Against RFR Responses or NBBO (or BBO)'') (providing, in relevant
part, that the Auction would end early if during the RTI the
Exchange receives a same-side unrelated quote or order that is
marketable against ``any RFR Responses or the NBBO (or the BBO, for
a non-routable order that is not a PNP Order) at the time of
arrival'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(B) also provides that ``[w]hen the
Auction concludes, the CUBE Order will execute pursuant to paragraph
(c)(5) [Order Allocation] of this Rule'' and any unexecuted ``GTX
Orders'' may trade with the interest that caused the Auction to end
early and then will cancel. The Exchange proposes to modify this
provision to make clear that any RFR Response--not just those marked as
GTX Orders--are eligible to trade with the interest that caused the
Auction to end. As proposed, ``[a]ny RFR Responses that do not execute
in the CUBE Auction will execute against the unrelated quote or order
that caused the CUBE Auction to conclude early to the extent possible
and GTX Orders will then cancel.'' \51\ This proposed change reflects
the current operation of the CUBE, thus adding clarity, transparency
and internal consistency to Exchange rules, and accounts for the
modified definition of RFR Responses (which also reflects current
functionality) to include interest resting (potentially undisplayed) at
the start of the Auction such as a PNPB or the proposed RPNP/MMRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See id. Consistent with this change, the Exchange also
proposes to modify paragraph (c)(4)(D), another early end scenario
based on same-side interest with similar rule text, to replace ``GTX
Orders'' with ``RFR Responses'' in terms of interest received during
the RTI that may trade in the Auction after the CUBE Order is
filled. See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(D) (providing, in relevant
part, that ``[u]nfilled RFR Responses are eligible to execute
against the unrelated interest that caused the CUBE Auction to
conclude early and GTX Orders will then cancel'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(C) provides that a CUBE Auction will
conclude early if the Exchange receives during the RTI ``any RFR
Response that is marketable against the NBBO (or the BBO, for a non-
routable order) at the time of arrival.'' Consistent with the proposed
change to paragraph (c)(4)(B) regarding same-side interest, the
Exchange proposes to modify the text to make clear that incoming
opposite-side interest is checked against ``the BBO, for a non-routable
order that is not a PNP Order,'' as PNP Orders are checked against the
NBBO.\52\ As noted above, this proposed change [sic] not alter the
current operation of this provision, but merely clarifies that distinct
operation of (non-routable) PNP Orders. This carve out of PNP Order
would include the proposed RPNP (and a PNPB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify this provision to
include opposite-side interest that is marketable against ``any
interest resting in the Consolidated Book.'' \53\ The Exchange notes
that this proposed change reflects current functionality and clarifies
that an RFR Response may be marketable against undisplayed interest in
the Book--specifically a PNPB or a RPNP/MMRP--that is not included in
the quoted BBO resulting in the early end of an Auction.\54\ This
proposed change reflects the current operation of the CUBE (in regards
to a PNPB) and also updates the rule to reflect the proposed RPNP/MMRP,
thus adding clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(C) (Opposite Side
Marketable Against Interest in the Consolidated Book, the NBBO (or
BBO) at the Time of Arrival) (providing, in relevant part, that the
Auction would end early if during the RTI the Exchange receives an
``any RFR Response that is marketable against the any interest
resting in the Consolidated Book, the NBBO (or the BBO, for a non-
routable order that is not a PNP Order) at the time of arrival'').
    \54\ See supra note 47 (regarding Rule 971.1NY(b), providing
that ``[f]or purposes of determining whether a CUBE Order is
eligible to initiate an Auction,'' references to the NBBO or BBO
``refer to the quoted market at the time the Auction is
initiated'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(D) provides that a CUBE Auction will
conclude early if the Exchange receives during the RTI ``an unrelated,
non-marketable quote or limit order that is on the same side of the
market as the CUBE Order to buy (sell) and that would adjust the lower
(upper) bound of the range of permissible executions to be higher
(lower) than the initiating price.'' \55\ To clarify existing
functionality, the Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (c)(D)(i) to
provide that a same-side IOC \56\ that would otherwise meet the
requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(D) (i.e., if its limit price was
incorporated into the NBBO, which it is not) would cause an Auction to
end early, even if the IOC Order cancels without trading.\57\ If such
an IOC Order causes a CUBE Auction to end early, the CUBE Order and
other eligible auction interest would be processed pursuant to
paragraph (c)(4)(D). This proposed modification reflects existing
functionality based on how the mechanism is built and would add clarity
and transparency to the CUBE rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See supra note 51 (regarding modifications to last sentence
of paragraph (c)(5)(D) regarding unfilled RFR Responses and GTX
Orders).
    \56\ See supra note 8 (defining IOC Order).
    \57\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(4)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Allocation
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY(c)(5) regarding
the allocation of the CUBE Order with eligible interest. Current Rule
971.1NY(c)(5)(A) provides that, at each price level, the CUBE Order
will first trade with resting Customers orders, followed by Customer
orders that arrived during the Auction. Because a Customer may submit a
PNPB or a RPNP--either of which may have an undisplayed price at which
it is eligible to trade, the Exchange proposes to modify the Rule to
make clear that only the ``displayed'' Customer interest benefits from
Customer priority, pursuant to Rule 964NY(c)(2)(A).\58\ This proposed
change is consistent with the Exchange's allocation rules,\59\ current
CUBE operation and simply updates the rule to reflect the treatment of
PNPB and the proposed RPNP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(A)(providing that, at each
price level, displayed Customer interest on the Book at the start of
the Auction have first priority, followed by displayed Customer
orders that arrived as RFR Responses, pursuant to Rule
964NY(c)(2)(A), provides that an inbound order will first be matched
against all available displayed Customer interest in the Book
(emphasis added). See also proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B) (providing
that ``[a]fter displayed Customer interest at a particular price
level has been satisfied, remaining contracts shall be allocated
among the Contra Order and RFR Responses as follows:'').
    \59\ See Rule 964NY(c)(2)(A) (``the inbound order will first be
matched against all available displayed Customer interest in the
Consolidated Book'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Initiating Participant may guarantee the
execution

of the CUBE via a single stop price, a range of prices up/down to match
the best-priced RFR Responses (assuming size of CUBE Order remains) or
a range of prices matching the best-priced RFR Responses up/down to an
auto-match limit price. The Exchange proposes to modify the rules
regarding CUBE Order allocation in these scenarios to clarify current
functionality regarding the treatment of a PNPB and to account for the
proposed RPNP and MMRP, which as RFR Responses, may be eligible to
trade in the Auction even if undisplayed. The current CUBE Order
allocation rule does not address the priority of RFR Responses that are
not displayed.
    First, the Exchange proposes to modify the Rule regarding the
allocation of a CUBE Order that is guaranteed by a single stop price.
In short, the current rule provides that the CUBE Order will trade with
any RFR Responses priced better than the stop price (by size pro rata),
starting with the best-priced RFR Responses until the stop price is
reached, at which price the Contra Order is entitled to its allocation
guarantee.\60\ Regarding the priority of RFR Responses priced better
than the stop price, the Exchange proposes to modify the rule to
provide that ``[a]t each price point, the CUBE Order shall be allocated
first to GTX Orders and displayed RFR Responses pursuant to the size
pro rata algorithm set forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3), and next to any
undisplayed RFR Responses at that price in time priority, pursuant to
Rule 964NY(c).'' \61\ The Exchange also proposes to modify the Rule to
specify the priority of RFR Responses at the stop price (if any portion
of the CUBE Order remains after the Contra Order receives its
allocation guarantee).\62\ The modified rule would provide that ``[a]ny
remaining CUBE Order contracts at the stop price shall be allocated
first among remaining GTX Orders and displayed RFR Responses pursuant
to the size pro rata algorithm set forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3), and next
to any undisplayed RFR Responses pursuant to Rule 964NY(c).'' \63\ This
proposed change is consistent with the Rule 964NY and simply updates
the rule to reflect current functionality regarding the treatment of a
PNPB and to account for the proposed RPNP/MMRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(i). Rule 964NY(b)(2) sets forth
priority and order allocation.
    \61\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(i)(a).
    \62\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(i)(b).
    \63\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second (and consistent with the changes to CUBE Orders guaranteed
by a stop price), the Exchange proposes to modify the Rule regarding
the allocation of a CUBE Order that is guaranteed by auto match. In
short, the current rule provides that the Contra Order is ``allocated
an equal number of contracts as the aggregate size of all other RFR
Responses at each price level'' starting with the best priced RFR
Response, ``until a price point is reached where the balance of the
CUBE Order can be fully executed (the `clean-up price').'' \64\ At the
clean-up price, if the Contra Order has not yet received its allocation
guarantee, and if sufficient size of the CUBE Order remains, the Contra
Order will be allocated the requisite additional contracts.\65\
Further, under the current rule, ``[i]f there are other RFR Responses
at the clean-up price, the remaining CUBE Order contracts will be
allocated to such interest pursuant to the size pro rata algorithm set
forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3).\66\ The Exchange proposes to modify the rule
to specify the priority of Responses at the clean-up price (if any
portion of the CUBE Order remains after the Contra Order receives its
allocation guarantee) to provide that CUBE Order contracts ``will be
allocated first to GTX Orders and displayed RFR Responses pursuant to
the size pro rata algorithm set forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3), and next to
any undisplayed RFR Responses at that price in time priority, pursuant
to Rule 964NY(c).'' \67\ This proposed change is consistent with the
operation of Rule 964NY and simply updates the rule to reflect current
functionality regarding the treatment of a PNPB and to account for the
proposed RPNP/MMRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(a).
    \65\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(b).
    \66\ See id. As is the case today, if all RFR Responses are
filled, any remaining portion of CUBE Order contracts is allocated
to the Contra Order at the initiating price and, in the event there
are no RFR Responses received in a given Auction, the CUBE Order
trades entirely with the Contra Order at the initiating price. See
Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(b),(c).
    \67\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in a similar vein, the Exchange proposes to modify the
rule to address how the CUBE Order will be allocated when auto-match
limit is selected. In short, the current rule provides that the CUBE
Order will trade with any RFR Responses priced better than the auto-
match limit price (size pro rata), starting with the best-priced
Responses until the auto-match limit price is reached.\68\ At prices
equal to or worse than the auto-match limit price (assuming sufficient
size of CUBE Order remains), the Contra Order will be allocated an
equal number of contracts as the aggregate size of all other RFR
Responses and will receive its allocation guarantee (if not already
met) at the clean-up price. If CUBE Order contracts remain after the
Contra Order gets its allocation guarantee, RFR Responses will trade
with the CUBE Order at that (clean-up) price, pro rata.\69\ The
Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (c)(5)(B)(iii)(a), regarding the
allocation of the CUBE Order with the best-priced Responses, to provide
that ``[a]t each price point, the CUBE Order shall be allocated first
to GTX Orders and displayed RFR Responses pursuant to the size pro rata
algorithm set forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3), and next to any undisplayed
RFR Responses at that price in time priority, pursuant to Rule
964NY(c).'' \70\ Regarding the CUBE Order trading with RFR Responses at
the clean-up price (if size remains), the Exchange proposes to modify
the rule to provide such contracts ``will be allocated first to GTX
Orders and displayed RFR Responses pursuant to the size pro rata
algorithm set forth in Rule 964NY(b)(3), and next to any undisplayed
RFR Responses at that price in time priority, pursuant to Rule
964NY(c).'' \71\ This proposed change is consistent with the operation
of the CUBE and simply updates the rule to reflect current
functionality regarding the treatment of a PNPB and to account for the
proposed RPNP/MMRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(iii)(a).
    \69\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(iii)(b).
    \70\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(iii)(a).
    \71\ See proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(iii)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is an example that illustrates RPNPs trading in a
CUBE Auction at their undisplayed price in time priority (behind
displayed interest).
CUBE Example (the MPV is $0.01)
BOX 100 x 1.00-1.25 x 100
MM 10 x 0.95-1.30 x 10
Firm1 RPNP B 100 @1.26
Firm2 RPNP B 100 @1.26
CUBE Order S 100 @1.20/Contra Order Buy guaranteed by automatch
Expected Result
BOX NBO @1.25
Firm1 bid reprices and is eligible to trade 100 @1.25 and will display
@1.24 (priced back one MPV from the NBO)
Firm2 bid reprices and is eligible to trade 100 @1.25 and will display
@1.24 (priced back one MPV from the NBO)
At the end of the CUBE auction: The CUBE Order sells 40 to the Contra
Order @1.25 (i.e., 40% participation guarantee), per Rule
971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(a), then 60 to

Firm1 @1.25, per Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(B)(ii)(b))
* * * * *
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date
of the proposed rule change within 90 days of the effective date of
this rule filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\72\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\73\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RPNP and MMRP
    The proposed RPNP would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because RPNPs would provide market participants with greater
flexibility and control over how their orders interact with liquidity
on the Exchange. The Exchange believes this proposal allows market
participants to provide and access greater liquidity on the Exchange,
thus benefiting Exchange members. The proposed order type would provide
a means to display such orders at prices that are designed to maximize
their opportunities for execution. Specifically, allowing any eligible
RPNP to be repriced and potentially trade at multiple price points
would improve the mechanism of price discovery. The Exchange believes
that ranking a repriced RPNP with other interest eligible to trade at a
price respects and preserves principles of Customer, as well as price-
time, priority and therefore would promote just and equitable
principles of trade. The Exchange notes that the RPNP is materially the
same as the RPNP order type recently approved for trading on NYSE Arca,
except as noted herein.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See NYSE Arca Repricing Approval Order, supra note 4. See
also supra note 6 (regarding the Exchange's Customer and price-time
priority scheme).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed RPNP, the proposed MMRP quote designation
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because MMRPs would provide
Market Makers with increased control over interactions with contra-side
liquidity and would increase opportunities for such interactions. The
Exchange notes that, absent the proposed repricing functionality
associated with the MMRP, a Market Maker quote that locks or crosses
interest on the Exchange or an away market would reject or cancel. In
the case of MMRPs, the proposal would afford Market Makers more
certainty when providing liquidity, while ensuring that MMRPs priced
too far through the contra-side NBBO would cancel or reject after
trading with any eligible interest on the Exchange. The Exchange notes
that the proposed MMRP is optional and Market Makers have the choice to
utilize this quote type (or not). The Exchange believes that ranking
the repriced MMRP with other interest available to trade at a price
respects and preserves principles of Customer, as well as price-time,
priority and therefore would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
    Because the options market is quote driven and Market Makers are
vital to the price discovery process, the Exchange believes that the
proposed (optional) quote types would provide Market Makers with a
greater level of determinism, in terms of managing their exposure, and
thus may encourage more aggressive liquidity provision, resulting in
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. This too would help
improve the mechanism of price discovery. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposal would improve overall market quality and
enhance competition on the Exchange to the benefit of all market
participants.
    Moreover, the Exchange also notes that the proposed MMRP is
materially the same as the MMRP quote designation recently approved for
trading on NYSE Arca, except as noted herein.\75\ Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the proposal would improve overall market
quality and improve competition on the Exchange, to the benefit of all
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RPNP/MMRP and the CUBE Auction
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the conduct of
the CUBE Auction would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system because the
proposed changes are consistent with the current operation of the CUBE
and would avoid disturbing priority in the Consolidated Book, in
accordance with Rule 964NY, regarding priority of quotes and orders.
    Specifically, the proposal to modify rule text to make clear that
RFR Responses include interest resting in the Consolidated Book at the
start of the Auction would align the rule text with current
functionality and add transparency and internal consistency to Exchange
rules, which in turn, would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system. This proposed change aligns
with the treatment of Customer interest resting at the start of a CUBE
Auction \76\ and would make clear that the proposed RPNP/MMRP (and
PNPBs) may participate in the Auction even if resting undisplayed on
the Book at the start of a CUBE Auction (and not included in the quoted
market).\77\ The Exchange believes that allowing eligible unrelated
quotes and orders resting on the Consolidated Book at the start of an
Auction--including eligible RPNP/MMRPs (and PNPBs)--to interact with
the CUBE Auction protects investors and the public interest because
this inclusion of resting interest in the Auction should increase the
number of participants against which the CUBE Order may be executed,
and is consistent with the primary goal of the CUBE Auction: To
maximize price improvement opportunities for the CUBE Order, while
seamlessly interacting with the Consolidated Book.\78\ Similarly, the
proposed modifications to make clear that--in the event of an early end
to the Auction--all RFR Responses, not solely GTX Orders, are eligible
to trade with interest received in the Auction, which would protect
investors and the investing public because it adds clarity,
specificity, and transparency to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(5)(A) (providing that ``[a]t each price
level, any Customer orders resting on the Consolidated Book at the
start of the CUBE Auction shall have first priority'' to trade with
the CUBE Order).
    \77\ See Rule 971.1NY(b) (providing that ``[f]or purposes of
determining whether a CUBE Order is eligible to initiate an
Auction,'' references to the NBBO or BBO ``refer to the quoted
market at the time the Auction is initiated'').
    \78\ The Exchange notes that to the extent that an order that
was resting undisplayed at the start of the CUBE Order is eligible
to trade with the CUBE Order, that interest would trade behind
Customer and displayed interest, at a price, so as not to disturb
the Exchange's allocation model, per proposed Rule 971.1NY(c)(5),
Order Allocation (as discussed herein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed modification of the early end scenarios would
remove

impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system because the changes would align the rule text
with existing functionality and would provide clarity and transparency
in Exchange rules of when a CUBE Auction would conclude early. As noted
above, the rationale for an early conclusion to an Auction is to allow
the Exchange to appropriately handle unrelated quotes and orders
without the CUBE Auction impacting that handling, and further allow a
CUBE Order, which has been guaranteed an execution, to execute against
the Contra Order and any RFR. The changes to the early end provisions
are designed to ensure internal consistency (in regards to the proposed
modified definition of RFR Responses) as well as clarify current
functionality of the early end checks (to carve out PNP Orders from BBO
check and to make clear that incoming interest may be checked for
marketability against interest in the Consolidated Book, not just the
BBO) to appropriately account for the fact that the best-priced
interest in the Book may not be displayed and thus not included in the
quoted BBO (such as the proposed RPNP/MMRP). Thus, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes are therefore consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because the changes
provide specificity in Exchange rules regarding when an Auction would
conclude early.
    In addition, the proposal to specify that IOC Orders that arrive
during an Auction may cause the Auction to end early would promote just
and equitable principles of trade and benefit investors as this
clarification regarding how the CUBE Auction mechanism operates ensures
that investors are aware of the potential impact of IOC Orders (even
ones that do not trade) on an Auction in progress.
    Finally, the proposal to clarify the order allocation provision
would promote just and equitable principles of trade and benefit
investors as this clarification would make clear that the priority of
RFR Responses is consistent with the Exchange Customer and price-time
priority model and would afford first priority, at each price point, to
displayed RFR Responses followed by undisplayed RFR Responses. These
proposed changes are consistent with the current operation of the CUBE
and would avoid disturbing priority in the Consolidated Book, in
accordance with Rule 964NY, regarding priority of quotes and orders.
Technical Changes
    The Exchange notes that the proposed organizational and non-
substantive changes to the rule text would provide clarity and
transparency to Exchange rules and would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.\79\
The proposed rule amendments would also provide internal consistency
within Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and the
investing public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and
comprehend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, e.g., supra notes 7, 19, 20, 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar
functionality. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
procompetitive because it would enable the Exchange to provide market
participants with functionality that is similar to that of other
options exchanges.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See NYSE Arca Repricing Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed MMRP would add value to market
making on the Exchange and the proposed RPNP would provide market
participants the option of exercising greater control over how orders
interact with contra-side liquidity both on the Exchange and on away
markets. The proposed MMRP/RPNP would allow market participants to
exert greater control over how their quotes and orders interact with
liquidity on the Exchange, thereby attracting more investors to the
Exchange, which, in turn, leads to greater price discovery and improves
overall market quality.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose a burden on
competition among the options exchanges but instead, because the
Exchange would be offering the proposed (optional) MMRP and RPNP, the
proposal would add to the existing competitive landscape. In this
highly competitive market, the Exchange would be at a competitive
disadvantage absent this proposal, which adopts functionality available
on other options exchanges. Permitting the Exchange to operate on an
even playing field relative to other exchanges that have similar
functionality removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system. The proposal does
not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because the
proposed MMRP would be available to all Market Makers on the Exchange
and the proposed RPNP would be available to all market participants.
The proposal is structured to offer the same enhancement to all Market
Makers and/or market participants, regardless of size, and would not
impose a competitive burden on any participant.
    The proposed MMRP, which provide Market Makers with enhanced
determinism over their quotes, may contribute to more aggressive
quoting by Market Makers, resulting in more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads. To the extent this purpose is achieved, the proposed
MMRP would enhance the market making function on the Exchange, which
would improve overall market quality and improve competition on the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange likewise does not believe that the proposed
clarifications to the rule text regarding the CUBE Auction would impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The rule changes are not
intended to address any competitive issues. Rather, the Exchange is
proposing to add more specificity, clarity and transparency regarding
the current operation of the CUBE Auction, particularly in light of the
proposed MMRP/RPNP.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \81\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \82\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \83\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \84\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. As
noted above, the proposed order type and quote designation are
substantially identical to those utilized on NYSE Arca, Inc., and the
differences noted herein do not raise substantive or novel issues.
Waiver of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately
implement the proposed functionality in coordination with the
availability of the technology supporting the proposal, which is
anticipated to be less than 30 days after the filing of the proposed
rule change. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \84\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \85\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-NYSEAMER-2019-06 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-NYSEAMER-2019-06. 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-NYSEAMER-2019-06 and should be submitted
on or before April 23, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06308 Filed 4-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19734-19735]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2021-0117 (Notice No. 2022-05)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
discussed below will be forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget for renewal and extension, and this notice describes the nature
of the information collection and its expected burdens. Additionally,
we note that on January 13, 2022, a notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on this ICR was published in the Federal Register,
and PHMSA did not receive any comments on it.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on, or before
May 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
    We invite comments on: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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.
    Docket: For access to the Dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. Today's notice identifies an
information collection request that PHMSA had previously published a
60-day notice \1\ seeking comments and is now submitting to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. This
information collection is contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised
burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting
levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules
published since the information collection was last approved. The
following information is provided for the information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection, including former title if a change
is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information
collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate
of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency
of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for the
information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
Federal Register alerting the public upon OMB's approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the 60-day notice published under Docket No. PHMSA-2021-
0117 (Notice No. 2022-01), on January 13, 2022 [87 FR 2238] at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/13/2022-00575/hazardous-materials-information-collection-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: Flammable Hazardous Materials by Rail Transportation
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0628.
    Summary: This OMB control number is used for information and
recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the sampling and testing
certification, routing analysis, and incident reporting for flammable
liquids by rail transportation. Rail carriers, shippers, PHMSA's Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
may use this information to ensure that rail tank cars transporting
flammable liquids are properly classified, ensure trains are routed
appropriately, and collect all relevant incident data.
    This OMB control number is being submitted for renewal and includes
the following information collections and associated burden hours:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hours per
             Information collection                 Respondents      Responses       response       Total hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling and Testing Plan Burden for Subsequent            1,801           1,801              10          18,010
 Year Revision..................................
Routing--Collection by Segment for Class II                   10              10              40             400
 Railroads......................................
Routing--Collection by Segment for Class III                 160             160              40           6,400
 Railroads......................................
Routing Analysis Burden for Class II Railroads..              10              50              16             800
Routing Analysis Burden for Class III Railroads.             160             320               8           2,560
Routing Security Analysis Burden for Class II                 10              40              12             480
 Railroads......................................
Routing Security Analysis Burden for Class III                64              32               4             128
 Railroads......................................
Tank Car Retrofit Burden........................              50              50             0.5              25
Crude Oil Incident Reporting....................              17              17               2              34
Oil Spill Response Plans--Submit Reports........              73            14.6             0.5             7.3
Oil Spill Response Plan--Class I................               7               7             162           1,134
Oil Spill Response Plan--Class II...............              11              11              54             594
Oil Spill Response Plan--Class III..............              55              55              36           1,980
Notification Plans--Maintenance.................              73           2,190               1           2,190
Notification Plans--DOT Request.................              73           15.33               1           15.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of petroleum liquids
transported by rail.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 2,574.
    Total Annual Responses: 4,773.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 34,758.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 2022.
William A. Quade,
Deputy Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-07166 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 62526-62528]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

September 30, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1361-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.203: DTI--Service Agreement Termination Notice to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1362-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Negotiate Rate 2010-09-29 A&R Northwind, Enserco, Concord to
be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1363-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Non-conforming Service Agreement 910791 to be effective
10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1364-000.
    Applicants: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: TransColorado Gas Transmission Company LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Index Publication Change to be effective 11/
1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1365-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Cleanup GT&C Section 32 to be effective 5/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1366-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.
    Description: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Baseline Filing of FERC Gas Tariff No. 1 to be effective
10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5298.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1367-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.403(d)(2): 2010 Fuel Tracker to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5306.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1368-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Compliance RP10-901 to be effective 8/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5312.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1369-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
154.203: Guardian Agreement Baseline to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5389.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1370-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.403(d)(2): MNUS FRQ Effective Nov. 2010 to be effective
11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5407.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1371-000.
    Applicants: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.
    Description: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. submits its baseline
filing to FERC Gas Tariff, Volume No. 1 pursuant to Order No. 714, to
be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1372-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company submits
First Revised Sheet 501 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume No. 1, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1373-000.
    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.
    Description: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. submits its Baseline
Tariff Filing to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 in
Compliance with Order No. 714, to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1374-000.
    Applicants: Paiute Pipeline Company.
    Description: Southwest Gas Transmission Company submits its
Baseline Filing to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 2, to be
effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1375-000.
    Applicants: Total Peaking Services, L.L.C.
    Description: Total Peaking Services, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Total Peaking Services, L.L.C.--Baseline eTariff Filing to
be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1376-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.403: DTI--Annual EPCA to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1377-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.403(d)(2): DTI--Annual TCRA to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1378-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Baseline Compliance Filing to be effective
9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1379-000.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Account 191 Filing to be effective 9/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1380-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Baseline Filing to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1381-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report covering the
12-month period ending June 30, 2010 of Wyoming Interstate Company,
L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1382-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Enerquest to Trans Louisiana 9-29-10 to be effective 10/1/
2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5543.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1383-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Baseline Filing to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1384-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.203: October 2010 IG Rate to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1385-000.
    Applicants: West Texas Gas, Inc.
    Description: West Texas Gas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.203: West Texas Gas, Inc. FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised Volume No.
1 to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1386-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Devon to Texla 9-30-10 to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1387-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Change In Rate Schedule, Forms of Service
Agreement, or GT&C to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1388-000.
    Applicants: OkTex Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: OkTex Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: OKTex Baseline Filing to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1389-000.
    Applicants: Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Baseline Filing to be effective 9/30/2010 under RP10-
01389-000 Filing Type: 740
    Filed Date: 09/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100930-5187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25560 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P