[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19877-19878]
[FR Doc No: E9-9901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 524

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

Ophthalmic and Topical Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Selamectin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Pfizer, Inc. The supplemental NADA revises
the minimum age of treatment from 6 weeks to 8 weeks for kittens
treated with a topical selamectin solution.

DATES: This rule is effective April 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Melanie R. Berson, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-110), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY
10017-5755, filed a supplement to NADA 141-152 that provides for
topical veterinary prescription use of REVOLUTION (selamectin) in dogs
and cats. The supplemental NADA revises the minimum age of treatment
from 6 weeks to 8 weeks for kittens. The supplemental NADA is approved
as of April 6, 2009, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 524.2098
to reflect the approval.
    Approval of these supplemental NADAs did not require review of
additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a
freedom of information summary is not required.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 524

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 524 is
amended as follows:

PART 524--OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 524 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  524.2098  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  524.2098, in the last sentence in paragraph (d)(2), remove
``For dogs and cats 6 weeks of age and older'' and in its place add
``For dogs 6 weeks of age and older, and cats 8 weeks of age and
older''.

    Dated: April 23, 2009.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-9901 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19811-19814]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0655; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01435-T;
Amendment 39-22399; AD 2023-06-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
the determination that radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to
perform their intended function if they experience interference from
wireless broadband operations in the 3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-
Band), and a recent determination that this interference can result in
unavailable or misleading radio altimeter information, adversely
affecting the performance of the automatic flight control system (AFCS)
and fly-by-wire (FBW) systems and resulting in increased flightcrew
workload during takeoff, approach, and landing below 400 feet above
ground level (AGL). This AD requires revising the existing airplane
flight manual (AFM) with new limitations to mitigate identified hazards
due to 5G C-Band interference as identified by Notices to Air Missions
(NOTAMs). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 19, 2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by May 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0655; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reisenauer, Aerospace
Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
516-228-7300; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0655; Project
Identifier MCAI-2022-01435-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to William
Reisenauer, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-23-12, Amendment 39-21810 (86 FR 69984,
December 9, 2021) (AD 2021-23-12), to address the effect of
interference from wireless broadband operations in the 3.7-3.98 GHz
frequency band (5G C-Band) on all transport and commuter category
airplanes equipped with a radio (also known as radar) altimeter. AD
2021-23-12 was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters cannot
be relied upon to perform their intended function if they experience
interference from wireless broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. AD
2021-23-12 requires revising the limitations section of the existing
AFM to incorporate limitations prohibiting certain operations, which
require radio altimeter data to land in low visibility conditions, when
in the presence of 5G C-Band interference as identified by

NOTAMs. Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada,
issued corresponding AD CF-2021-52, dated December 24, 2021, to
prohibit certain flight operations requiring radio altimeter data in
U.S. airspace affected by 5G C-Band wireless signals.
    Since Transport Canada issued AD CF-2021-52, Transport Canada
evaluated whether additional 5G-related hazards exist in certain
Bombardier model airplanes. Bombardier has determined that 5G C-Band
interference can result in unavailable or misleading radio altimeter
information, adversely affecting the performance of the AFCS and FBW
systems as follows:
     Erroneous radio altimeter information has the potential to
cause incorrect gains on approach, flight guidance oscillation, and
crew over-correction. The flight director uses the glideslope to
linearize the angular deviation and if the radio altimeter erroneously
changes to an incorrect value, the resulting pitch command may be
inadequate, resulting in flight path oscillations.
     Misleading radio altimeter information can adversely
impact the autothrottle function, resulting in early or late activation
of the retard mode, leading to an inappropriate level of thrust. This
may result in a low energy state or longer landing distance. This
malfunction will increase pilot workload as the crew disconnects the
autothrottle and overrides the throttle levers.
     In the event of a weight-on-wheels (WOW) signal failure in
combination with a related Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL)
dispatch, interference may result in the radio altimeter deploying the
two pairs of ground spoilers at heights above 7 feet AGL.
     In the event of a WOW signal failure in combination with
certain related MMEL dispatch associated with Section 2 Crew Alerting
System (CAS) message relief, a takeoff rotation delay is significant
and could compromise safe flight and landing.
    These effects may lead to increased flightcrew workload and
adversely affect the safe operation of the airplane during takeoff,
approach, and landing below 400 feet AGL. Accordingly, Transport Canada
determined that additional actions are necessary to address the unsafe
condition and issued AD CF-2022-61, dated November 4, 2022 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2022-61) (also referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), on
all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. Transport Canada AD
CF-2022-61 prohibits dispatch or release under certain MMEL items under
Section 1, Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) Component Relief, and Section 2,
Crew Alerting System (CAS) Message Relief. Transport Canada AD CF-2022-
61 also requires revising the AFM with new limitations to prohibit
autopilot and autothrottle operation below 400 feet AGL when in the
presence of 5G C-Band interference as identified by NOTAMs.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0655.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the existing AFM with new limitations to
prohibit dispatch under specified MMEL items under Section 1, Line
Replaceable Unit (LRU) Component Relief, and Section 2, Crew Alerting
System (CAS) Message Relief and to prohibit autopilot and autothrottle
operation below 400 feet AGL when in the presence of 5G C-Band
interference as identified by NOTAMs.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD an interim action. If final action is
later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their
intended function if they experience interference from wireless
broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. Further, this interference can
result in unavailable or misleading radio altimeter information,
adversely affecting the performance of the AFCS, which could lead to
increased flightcrew workload and adversely affect the safe operation
of the airplane during takeoff, approach, and landing. The required
actions to address the unsafe condition must be accomplished within 30
days, which is shorter than the time necessary to allow for public
comment and for the FAA to publish a final rule. Accordingly, notice
and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                        Estimated Costs for AFM Revisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170           $8,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-06-13 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22399; Docket No. FAA-
2023-0655; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01435-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 19, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the determination that radio altimeters
cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they
experience interference from wireless broadband emissions in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band), and a recent determination
that this interference can result in unavailable or misleading radio
altimeter information, adversely affecting the performance of the
automatic flight control system (AFCS) and fly-by-wire systems and
resulting in increased flightcrew workload during takeoff, approach,
and landing below 400 feet above ground level. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the resulting effects on the performance of the
AFCS. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
increased flightcrew workload and adversely affect the safe
operation of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Existing Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): Master Minimum
Equipment List (MMEL) Restrictions

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
Chapter 2--Limitations, Section 8 Systems, C. Automatic Flight
Control System, of the existing AFM to include the information
specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

Figure 1 to paragraph (g)--MMEL Restrictions
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP23.006

(h) Revision of Existing AFM: AFCS

    For airplane serial numbers 70001 through 70110 inclusive and
70112: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
Chapter 2--Limitations, Section 8 Systems, C. Automatic Flight
Control System, of the existing AFM to include the information
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD. Using a document
with language identical to that of figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this
AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph.

Figure 2 to paragraph (h): AFM Limitations revision
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AP23.007

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the New York ACO
Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, at the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or
email to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also
submit information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Previous AMOCs: AMOCs approved for AD 2021-23-12, Amendment
39-21810 (86 FR 69984, December 9, 2021), providing relief for
specific radio altimeter installations are approved as AMOCs for the
provisions of this AD.
    (3) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s Transport
Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO,
the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-61, dated November 4,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0655.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact William
Reisenauer, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on March 23, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07078 Filed 3-31-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31981-31983]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11878]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77837; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Definition of Professional Customer in Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)

May 16, 2016.
    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 May 3, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Professional
Customer in Rule 6.1A(a)(4A) to specify the manner in which the
Exchange calculates average daily order submissions for purposes of
counting Professional Customer orders. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site 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 Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Professional
Customer in Rule 6.1A(a)(4A) to adopt a methodology for counting
average daily order submissions in listed options to determine whether
a person or entity meets the definition of a Professional Customer
(``Professional Customer order counting''). The proposed rule change is
designed to harmonize Professional Customer order counting with the
recently adopted rules of competing options exchanges--specifically the
Chicago Board of Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC (``PHLX'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77450 (March 25,
2016), 81 FR 18668, (March 31, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-005); 77449
(March 25, 2016), 81 FR 18665, (March 31, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-10)
(approval orders). The Exchange notes that it recently issued
guidance regarding Professional Customer order counting. See e.g.,
NYSE Arca, Inc.'s and NYSE MKT LLC's Joint Regulatory Bulletin (RBO-
15-03 and RBO-15-06, respectively) dated September 9, 2015. This
proposal codifies that guidance in a manner that is consistent with
CBOE and PHLX's approved rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.1A(a)(4A) defines Professional Customer ``as an individual
or organization that (i) is not a Broker/Dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during
a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).'' In adopting the
Rule 6.1A(a)(4A), the Exchange noted that identifying Professional
Customer accounts based upon the average number of orders entered in
qualified accounts is an appropriate, objective approach that will
reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from non-professional,
retail investors or market participants. In order to properly represent
orders entered on the Exchange, OTP Holders and OTP Firms are required
to indicate whether Customer orders are ``Professional Customer''
orders.\5\ To comply with this requirement, member organizations are
required to review their Customers' activity on at least a quarterly
basis to determine whether orders that are not for the account of a
broker-dealer should be represented as Customer orders or Professional
Customer orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g., Rule 6.69 (Reporting Duties), Commentary .03
(requiring that manual orders submitted be marked with an origin
code ``PC.'').
    \6\ Orders for any customer that had an average of more than 390
orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be
represented as Professional Customer orders for the next calendar
quarter. OTP Holders and OTP Firms would be required to conduct a
quarterly review and make any appropriate changes to the way in
which they are representing orders within five business days after
the end of each calendar quarter. While members only would be
required to review their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a
quarter the Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are
being represented as Customer orders but that has averaged more than
390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange would notify the OTP
Holder and the OTP Holder would be required to change the manner in
which it is representing the customer's orders within five business
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advent of new multi-leg spread products and the proliferation
of the use of complex orders and algorithmic execution strategies by
both institutional and retail market participants has raised questions
as to what should be counted as an ``order'' for Professional Customer
order counting purposes. The proposed changes would specifically
address the

counting of multi-leg spread products, algorithm generated orders, and
complex orders for purposes of determining Professional Customer
status. In addition, the proposal is intended to provide guidance
regarding the methodology used by the Exchange when calculating average
daily orders for Professional order counting purposes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This proposal is consistent with CBOE and PHLX's approved
rules. See supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the rule would provide that an order would count as
one order for Professional Customer counting purposes, unless one of
the exceptions enumerated in the proposed rule stipulates otherwise
(each an ``Exception''). The first Exception relates to the treatment
of complex orders for purposes of computing orders for Professional
order counting purposes. Specifically, the proposed rule provides that
a complex order of eight legs or less would count as one order, whereas
a complex order comprised of nine (9) option legs or more counts as
multiple orders with each option leg counting as its own separate
order.\8\ The Exchange believes the distinction between complex orders
with up to eight legs from those with nine or more legs is appropriate
in light of the purposes for which Rule 6.1A(a)(4A) was adopted. In
particular, the Exchange notes that multi-leg complex order strategies
with nine or more legs are more complex in nature and thus, more likely
to be used by professional traders than traditional two, three, and
four leg complex order strategies such as the strangle, straddle,
butterfly, collar, and condor strategies, and combinations thereof with
eight legs or fewer, which are generally not algorithmically generated
and are frequently used by non-professional, retail investors. Thus,
the types of complex orders traditionally placed by retail investors
would continue to count as only one order while the more complex
strategy orders that are typically used by professional traders would
count as multiple orders for Professional Customer order counting
purposes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(1)(i)-(ii).
    \9\ See also supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second Exception relates to calculations for parent/child
orders. As proposed, if a parent order submitted for the beneficial
account(s) of a person or entity other than a broker or dealer is
subsequently broken up into multiple child orders on the same side
(buy/sell) and series by a broker or dealer, or by an algorithm housed
at the broker or dealer, or by an algorithm licensed from the broker or
dealer but housed with the customer, then the order would count as one
order even if the child orders are routed across several exchanges.\10\
The Exchange believes this proposed change would allow the orders of
public customers to be ``worked'' by a broker (or a broker's algorithm)
in order to achieve best execution without counting the multiple child
orders as separate orders for Professional Customer order counting
purposes. Conversely, if a parent order, including a strategy
order,\11\ is broken into multiple child orders on both sides (buy/
sell) of a series and/or multiple series, then each child order would
count as a separate new order per side and series.\12\ This proposed
change would allow the Exchange, for Professional Customer order
counting purposes, to count as multiple orders those ``child'' orders
of ``parent'' orders generated by algorithms that are typically used by
sophisticated traders to continuously update their orders in concert
with market updates in order to keep their overall trading strategies
in balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(2)(i).
    \11\ The term ``strategy order'' refers to an execution
strategy, trading instruction, or algorithm whereby multiple
``child'' orders on both sides of a series and/or multiple series
are generated prior to being sent to an options exchange(s).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third Exception would govern the counting methodology for
cancel/replace orders. As proposed, any order that cancels and replaces
an existing order would count as a separate order (or multiple orders
in the case of complex orders of nine legs or more) for Professional
Customer order counting purposes.\13\ However, the Exchange proposes
that an order to cancel and replace a child order would not count as a
new order if the parent order that was placed for the beneficial
account(s) of a non-broker or dealer had been subsequently broken into
multiple child orders on the same side and series as the parent order
by a broker or dealer, algorithm at a broker or dealer, or algorithm
licensed from a broker or dealer but housed at the customer.\14\ By
contrast, the Exchange proposes that an order that cancels and replaces
a child order resulting from a parent order, including a strategy
order, that generated child orders on both sides (buy/sell) of a series
and/or in multiple series would count as a new order per side and
series (``Both Sides/Multiple Series'').\15\ Finally, the Exchange
proposes that, notwithstanding the treatment of a cancel/replace
relating to Both Sides/Multiple Series orders, an order that cancels
and replaces any child order resulting from a parent order being pegged
to the Exchange's best bid or offer (``BBO'') or the national best bid
or offer (``NBBO'') or that cancels and replaces any child order
pursuant to an algorithm that uses the BBO or NBBO in the calculation
of child orders and attempts to move with or follow the BBO or NBBO of
a particular options series would count as a new order each time the
order cancels and replaces in order to attempt to move with or follow
the BBO or NBBO.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(3)(i).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(3)(ii).
    \15\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(3)(iii).
    \16\ See proposed Rule 6.1A(a)(4A)(A)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule on July 1, 2016, which
would be announced via Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\18\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitation transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal is designed
to adopt a reasonable and objective approach to determine Professional
Customer status that is consistent with the approach being utilized on
other options exchanges, which benefits market participants by
providing consistency across exchanges regarding the Professional
Customer order counting.\19\ In this regard, the Exchange believes that
codifying the manner in which the Exchange would conduct Professional
Customer order counting would provide OTP Holders and OTP Firms with
certainty and provide them with insight as they conduct their own
quarterly reviews for purposes of designating orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra n. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it is not amending the threshold of 390
orders in listed options per day but, consisting with other exchanges
is revising the method for counting Professional Customer orders in the
context of multi-part orders and cancel/replace activity. In short, the
proposal addresses how to account for complex orders, parent/

child orders, and cancel/replace orders. The Exchange believes that
distinguishing between complex orders with 9 or more options legs and
those orders with 8 or fewer options legs is a reasonable and objective
approach. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposal appropriately
distinguishes between parent/child orders that are generated by a
broker's efforts to obtain an execution on a larger size order while
minimizing market impact and multi-part orders that used by more
sophisticated market participants. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that the proposal that cancel/replace orders would count as separate
orders with limited exceptions is a reasonable and objective approach
to distinguish the orders of retail customers that are ``worked'' by a
broker from orders generated by algorithms used by more sophisticated
market participants.
    Thus, the Exchange believes the proposal, which establishes an
objective methodology for counting average daily order submissions for
Professional Customer order counting purposes, is consistent with the
Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposed
rule change is a competitive change that is substantially similar to
recent rule changes filed by the CBOE and PHLX.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that one of the purposes of the Professional
Customer designation is to help ensure fairness in the marketplace and
promote competition among all market participants. The Exchange
believes that this proposal would help establish more competition among
market participants and promote the purposes for which the Exchange's
Professional Customer rule was originally adopted. Moreover, the
proposal would stem ensure consistency and stem potential confusion as
to the manner in which options exchanges compute the Professional
Customer order volume.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-65, and should be
submitted on or before June 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11878 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P