[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51742-51745]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1652; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01528-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede five airworthiness directives
(ADs) for all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (RRD) Model RB211-
535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 engines. The existing
ADs require recalculating the cyclic life for certain engine life-
limited rotating parts and replacing those parts that have exceeded
their cyclic life limit within specified compliance times. Since the
FAA issued those ADs the manufacturer has revised the engine time
limits manual (TLM), introducing new and more restrictive instructions.
This proposed AD would require revising the airworthiness limitations
section (ALS) of the existing approved maintenance or inspection
program, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by September 18,
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-2023-1652; 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 NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221
8999 000; email: [email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also
available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1652.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1652; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01528-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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
the proposal 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 NPRM.

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 NPRM 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 NPRM, 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 NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. 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 2003-17-15, Amendment 39-13290 (68 FR 51682,
August 28, 2003) (AD 2003-17-15); AD 2013-19-17, Amendment 39-17599 (78
FR 61171, October 3, 2013); corrected November 14, 2013 (78 FR 68360)
(AD 2013-19-17); AD 2013-19-18, Amendment 39-17600 (78 FR 61168,
October 3, 2013) (AD 2013-19-18); AD 2015-17-21, Amendment 39-18254 (80
FR 65925, October 28, 2015) (AD 2015-17-21); and AD 2016-03-04,
Amendment 39-18391 (81 FR 6755, February 9, 2016) (AD 2016-03-04) for
RRD Model RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37
engines. The FAA also issued AD 2004-19-04, Amendment 39-13798 (69 FR
56683, September 22, 2004); corrected September 30, 2004 (69 FR 58257)
for Model RB211-22B, RB211-524, and RB211-535 series engines. Those ADs
require recalculating the cyclic life for certain engine life-limited
rotating parts and replacing those parts that have exceeded their
cyclic life limit within specified compliance times, and revision of
the engine TLM. The FAA issued those ADs to prevent failure of critical
life-limited rotating engine parts, which could result in uncontained
parts release, uncontained engine failure, damage to the engine, and
damage to the airplane.

Actions Since the Previous ADs Were Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2003-17-15, AD 2004-19-04, AD 2013-19-17,
AD 2013-19-18, AD 2015-17-21, and AD 2016-03-04; EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued
EASA AD 2022-0235, dated December 1, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0235) (also
referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the
manufacturer published a revised engine TLM introducing new or more
restrictive tasks and limitations. These new or more restrictive tasks
and limitations include updating declared lives of certain critical
parts.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1652.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0235, which specifies instructions
for accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable engine TLM,
including performing maintenance tasks, replacing life-limited parts,
and revising the existing approved maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated
thresholds and intervals described in the engine TLM. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are 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 NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of these same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2003-
17-15, AD 2013-19-17, AD 2013-19-18, AD 2015-17-21, and AD 2016-03-04.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing approved
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-
0235, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.'' This proposed AD
would also terminate all requirements of AD 2004-19-04 for Model RB211-
535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 engines only.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0235 specifies revising the
approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme within 12 months after the
effective date of EASA AD 2022-0235, this proposed AD would require
revising the ALS of the existing approved maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 468 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the ALS of the existing          1 work-hours x $85 per                $0             $85         $39,780
 approved maintenance or inspection      hour = $85.
 program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive AD 2003-17-15, Amendment 39-13290
(68 FR 51681, August 28, 2003); AD 2013-19-17, Amendment 39-17599 (78
FR 61171, October 3, 2013); corrected November 14, 2013 (78 FR 68360);
AD 2013-19-18, Amendment 39-17600 (78 FR 61168, October 3, 2013); AD
2015-17-21, Amendment 39-18254 (80 FR 65925, October 28, 2015); and AD
2016-03-04, Amendment 39-18391 (81 FR 6755, February 9, 2016); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG: Docket No. FAA-2023-1652;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01528-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 18, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2003-17-15, Amendment 39-13290 (68 FR
51682, August 28, 2003).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2004-19-04, Amendment 39-13798 (69 FR
56683, September 22, 2004); corrected September 30, 2004 (69 FR
58257) (AD 2004-19-04).
    (3) This AD replaces AD 2013-19-17, Amendment 39-17599 (78 FR
61171, October 3, 2013); corrected November 14, 2013 (78 FR 68360).
    (4) This AD replaces AD 2013-19-18, Amendment 39-17600 (78 FR
61168, October 3, 2013).
    (5) This AD replaces AD 2015-17-21, Amendment 39-18254 (80 FR
65925, October 28, 2015).
    (6) This AD replaces AD 2016-03-04, Amendment 39-18391 (81 FR
6755, February 9, 2016).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co KG (RRD)
Model RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37
engines, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine
(Turbine/Turboprop).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the engine
Time Limits Manual and the life limits of certain critical rotating
parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of critical
rotating parts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result
in uncontained parts release, uncontained engine failure, damage to
the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all
required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0235, dated December 1, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0235).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0235

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0235 defines the AMP as the Aircraft
Maintenance Programme which contains the tasks on the basis of which
the scheduled maintenance is conducted to ensure the continuing
airworthiness of each operated engine, this proposed AD defines the
AMP as the Aircraft Maintenance Program which contains the tasks of
which the operator or the owner ensures the continuing airworthiness
of each operated airplane.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0235 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) This AD does not require compliance with paragraph (1) and
(2) of EASA AD 2022-0235.
    (4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0235 specifies revising
the approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme within 12 months after
the effective date of EASA AD 2022-0235, this proposed AD would
require revising the ALS of the existing approved maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0235.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After performing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and intervals,
including life limits, are allowed unless they are approved as
specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of
EASA AD 2022-0235.

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2004-19-04

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2004-19-04 for Model RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-
B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 engines only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety 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
responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)
of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0235, dated
December 1, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0235, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 27, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16535 Filed 8-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


of price-improving interest. Moreover, permitting concurrent auctions
for larger-sized agency orders (analogous to CUBE Orders of 50 or more
contracts), which is not new or novel functionality and has been in
place on other options exchanges for several years, would be a
competitive change.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See, e.g., note 106, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to permit concurrent auctions in the same series for
CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because it would
extend concurrent auction functionality to smaller-sized CUBE Orders.
The Exchange also believes this proposed change is non-controversial
because it should not raise any issues that differ from those
previously considered when other options exchanges adopted this
functionality for larger-sized agency orders submitted to price
improvement auctions. The proposal would benefit investors because it
would afford smaller-sized CUBE Orders increased opportunity to solicit
price-improving auction interest--including because receipt of a new
CUBE Order would no longer cause the Auction in progress to end early.
The Exchange further believes that this proposed change would provide
additional benefits to Customers, as smaller-sized CUBE Orders tend to
represent retail interest and could improve the Customer experience on
the Exchange by increasing trading opportunities in the CUBE Auction.
Notwithstanding the proposal to allow concurrent auctions for smaller-
sized CUBE Orders, the Exchange would continue to protect Customer
interest on the Consolidated Book by requiring price improvement over
the BBO to initiate an Auction for smaller-sized CUBE Orders and
rejecting such orders in penny-wide markets when price improvement is
not possible.
    The Exchange believes this proposed new functionality to allow
concurrent auctions for CUBE Orders of any size should promote and
foster competition and provide more options contracts with the
opportunity for price improvement, which should benefit all market
participants. In addition, this

proposed change may lead to an increase in Exchange volume and should
allow the Exchange to better compete against other markets that permit
overlapping price improvement auctions, while continuing to ensure that
displayed Customer interest on the Consolidated Book is protected. The
proposed enhancement to allow concurrent auctions for CUBE Orders of
any size would be a competitive change and would make the Exchange a
more attractive venue for auction-related order flow.
    As noted above, the Exchange believes that the Pillar trading
platform has sufficient capacity to process a large volume of
concurrent Auctions for CUBE Orders of any size, including for CUBE
Orders of fewer than 50 contracts.
    The proposed changes to streamline early end scenarios for CUBE
Auctions would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and would protect
investors and the public interest because it would increase the
opportunity for each CUBE Auction to run the full length of the (fixed
duration) RTI, which should increase opportunities for price
improvement. In addition, this proposed change should promote and
foster competition and provide more options contracts with the
opportunity for price improvement, which should benefit all market
participants. The Exchange notes that the proposed functionality would
simplify the operation of CUBE Auctions in a manner that is consistent
with other options exchanges' price improvement mechanisms.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See, e.g., note 115, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to provide the option of designating a Surrender
Quantity would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market because it would afford more discretion and
flexibility to the Contra Order and may result in increased CUBE
Auction volume on the Exchange. Moreover, this proposed enhancement is
competitive as it would allow the Exchange to compete on more equal
footing with other options exchanges that offer this feature in their
price improvement auctions.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See, e.g., note 140, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes to modify the handling and operation of
GTX Orders on Pillar per proposed Rule 971.1NYP(c)(1)(C)(a), (c) (i.e.,
that such orders will execute with the CUBE Order to the extent
possible and then cancel) and to clarify that GTX Orders, although not
displayed or disseminated, are ranked and prioritized with same-priced
Limit Orders as Priority 2--Display Orders on Pillar (consistent with
proposed new Rule 964NYP) would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and
would protect investors and the public interest because such changes
would make clear to market participants responding to CUBE Auctions
with GTX Orders how such interest would be prioritized and handled on
Pillar, thus adding clarity, transparency, and internal consistency to
Exchange rules.
    The proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
and would protect investors and the public interest because the
proposed CUBE Order allocation is consistent with current
functionality, including that the Contra Order may be allocated a
limited percentage of the CUBE Order ahead of certain other same-priced
RFR Responses, except that the proposed rule would align with Pillar
Rule 964NYP as described herein. Consistent with current functionality,
the Exchange believes that the Contra Order, having guaranteed the
execution of the CUBE Order, should be entitled to a certain level of
participation in the Auction, assuming CUBE Order contracts remain
after executing with contra-side interest prioritized ahead of the
Contra Order. In addition, this alignment of CUBE Order functionality
with Pillar Rule 964NYP would add clarity, transparency, and internal
consistency to Exchange rules to the benefit of investors.
    The proposed rule change to specify that the Surrender Quantity
option is not available for Contra Orders to AON CUBE Orders would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and would protect investors and the
public interest because such rule text would not alter the
functionality of AON CUBE Orders on Pillar but would instead add
clarity, transparency, and internal consistency to Exchange rules.
    Further, the proposed rule change would promote a fair and orderly
market and national market system, because, as noted herein, the
proposed enhancements to CUBE Auctions on Pillar are the same as those
offered on other options exchanges that have price improvement
mechanisms, except as noted herein.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed handling of CUBE Auctions on Pillar
would be the same for similarly-situated ATP Holders but (as is the
case today) would vary for those ATP Holders submitting interest on
behalf of Customers versus ATP Holders submitting interest on behalf of
non-Customers. As is the case today, all ATP Holders would continue to
have an equal opportunity to receive the broadcast and respond with
their best prices during the auction. The proposal to continue to
afford Customer interest first priority within each Pillar Priority
category is consistent with the Exchange's Customer-centric trading
model and would benefit investors by attracting more (Customer) order
flow to the Exchange which would result in increased liquidity.
    In sum, the Exchange believes this proposal may lead to an increase
in Exchange volume and should allow the Exchange to better compete
against other options markets that already offer the enhanced
functionality proposed herein. In particular, the Exchange believes
that its proposal would allow the Exchange to better compete for
auction order flow, while providing an opportunity for price
improvement on CUBE Orders of any size. In addition, the proposed
functionality should promote and foster competition and provide more
options contracts with the opportunity for price improvement, which
should benefit market participants

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the transition to Pillar would promote competition among options
exchanges by offering a low-latency, deterministic trading platform.
The proposed rule changes would support that inter-market competition
by allowing the Exchange to offer additional functionality to its ATP
Holders, thereby potentially attracting additional order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes
would impact intra-market competition as the proposed rule changes
would be applicable to all similarly-situated ATP Holders and reflects
the Exchange's existing priority model.
    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 this
proposed rule change would promote fair competition among the options
exchanges and establish more uniform functionality across the various
price improvement

auctions offered by other options exchanges. As noted herein, several
of the proposed enhancements to the Auction--i.e., concurrent auctions
for larger-sized agency orders, inclusion of an AuctionID on Request
for Responses and the option to include an AuctionID on GTX Orders, a
fixed duration during which auction responses are submitted, and the
ability to designate an optional Surrender Quantity-- are currently
offered on other options exchanges and the addition of these features
would make the Exchange a more competitive venue for price improvement
auctions. The proposed functionality may lead to an increase in
Exchange volume and should allow the Exchange to better compete against
other options markets that already offer similar price improvement
mechanisms and for this reason the proposal does not create an undue
burden on intermarket competition. By contrast, not having the proposed
functionality places the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage vis-
[agrave]-vis other exchanges that offer similar price improvement
mechanisms.

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 \175\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\176\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \176\ 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) \177\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ 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 protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-35 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-2023-35. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-35 and should be submitted on or
before August 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15575 Filed 7-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78171-78172]
[DOCID:fr28de06-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-161]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated
Rate Filing

December 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing and approval a
negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. CEGT
states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm
transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and
requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which
transportation service will commence upon the ``in-service'' date
following completion of certain Line CP facilities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22225 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63057-63059]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014--0355]
RIN 2126-AB77

Amendment to Emergency Relief Exemptions Pursuant to the Reliable
Home Heating (RHH) Act

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA adopts, as final, certain amendments to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) required by the Reliable Home
Heating (RHH) Act. Currently, the FMCSRs include a provision which
enables motor carriers providing direct assistance in responding to an
emergency declared by a governor to do so without having to comply with
certain Federal safety regulations. However, the duration of the relief
is limited to 30 days unless FMCSA extends the exemption. This final
rule amends the emergency relief provision in the FMCSRs so that the
safety requirements in 49 CFR parts 390-399 will not apply if a
Governor: Declares a state of emergency caused by a shortage of
residential heating fuel; determines at the end of the 30-day exemption
period currently authorized by the regulations that the emergency
shortage has not ended; and extends the declaration of emergency for up
to 2 additional 30-day periods. Because the rule is a non-
discretionary, ministerial action as required by the RHH Act, it is
issued without prior notice and opportunity for comment, pursuant to
the good cause exception in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

DATES: Effective October 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may view material bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0355 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for viewing material.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief of Driver and
Carrier Operations, by telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    This rule makes nondiscretionary ministerial changes to FMCSA's
emergency relief regulations in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
390.23. The changes are required by Section 2(c) of the RHH Act, Public
Law 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388, June 30, 2014. When shortages of
residential heating fuel occur, the RHH amendments extend the normal
30-day exemption period for up to 90 days, provided that the Governor
of the affected State determines that a second or third 30-day period
must be allowed to enable motor carriers to provide residential heating
fuel expeditiously.

Benefits and Costs

    The rule provisions considered both individually and in the
aggregate do not rise to the level of economic significance.

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rule is required by Section 2(c) of the Reliable Home Heating
(RHH) Act, Public Law 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388, June 30, 2014.
    Section 390.23(a) of title 49, CFR, provides that 49 CFR parts 390-
399 of the FMCSRs shall not apply to any motor carrier or driver
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to provide emergency relief
during an emergency declared by certain Federal or State officials,
including a Governor, subject to certain time limits. Section
390.23(a)(1)(ii) limits a regional emergency (which would include a
State-wide emergency) to a maximum of 30 days from the date of the
initial declaration of the emergency.
    Section 2(b) of the RHH Act provides that, if a Governor (1)
declares a state of emergency caused by a shortage of residential
heating fuel,\1\ (2) determines

at the end of the 30-day exemption period authorized by section
390.23(a)(1)(ii) that the emergency shortage has not ended, and (3)
extends the declaration of emergency for up to 2 additional 30-day
periods, FMCSA shall not apply parts 390-399 of the FMCSRs to a motor
carrier or driver operating a CMV to provide residential heating fuel
in the geographic area designated by the emergency declaration for
those 2 additional periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the Act states that residential heating fuel
``includes'' heating oil, natural gas, and propane, FMCSA believes
that list was intended to be exclusive, despite the use of the vague
term ``includes.'' The rules of statutory interpretation generally
treat a list of specific items as evidence of legislative intent to
exclude other items [expressio unius est exclusio alterius]. Section
390.23(a)(1)(ii) has been amended accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2(c) of the RHH Act requires FMCSA to amend section
390.23(a)(1)(ii) to conform to the provisions of section 2(b). This
rule adopts the required conforming amendment.
    Because the RHH Act leaves FMCSA no discretion in the promulgation
of this amendment, the Agency finds good cause under the APA [5 U.S.C.
553(b)] to publish this final rule without prior notice and opportunity
for comment. Comments are unnecessary since they could not change the
amendment required by the RHH Act. For the same reason, FMCSA finds
good cause to make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal
Register, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is
also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As explained above, this
final rule promulgates nondiscretionary statutory requirements. The
cost of these changes will not exceed the $100 million annual
threshold. Any costs associated with this action are attributable to
the non-discretionary statutory provisions. This final rule is not
expected to generate substantial congressional or public interest.
Therefore, a regulatory impact analysis has not been conducted nor has
there been a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C.
604(a) for this final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking prior to this action.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects
on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact,
Thomas Yager, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the SBA's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-
734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to
regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against
retaliation for exercising these rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $151 million
(which is the value of $100 million in 2013 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any one year.

E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. This action has been analyzed in
accordance with E.O. 13132. FMCSA has determined that this rule would
not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts
any State law or regulation.

E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.

E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically
significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is
required. In any event, the Agency does not believe that this action
could create an environmental or safety risk that would
disproportionately affect children.

E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have takings implications.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII).
    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. That
provision is not applicable to this rule.

E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. This rule requires no information collection.

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and
FMCSA's NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering
Environmental Impacts, Order 5610.1 (FMCSA Order), March 1, 2004 (69 FR
9680). FMCSA's Order states that ``[w]here FMCSA has no discretion to
withhold or condition an action if the action is taken in accordance
with specific statutory criteria and FMCSA lacks control and
responsibility over the effects of an action, that action is not
subject to this Order.'' Id. at chapter 1(D). Because the RHH Act
requires the action taken here, FMCSA has no jurisdiction or control
over, or responsibility for, the effects of this action, and the
rulemaking falls under chapter 1(D). Therefore, no further analysis is
considered.
    In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air
quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.)
also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of its actions on
air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to State and local
air quality implementation plans. This non-discretionary action is
expected to fall within the CAA de minimis standards and is not subject
to the Environmental Protection Agency's General Conformity Rule (40
CFR parts 51 and 93).
    Additionally, FMCSA evaluated the effects of this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 12898 and determined that there are no
environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any
collective environmental impacts resulting from its promulgation.
Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were a
``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on minority or
low-income populations. This final rule is exempt from analysis under
the National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule simply makes
ministerial, mandatory changes and would not result in high and adverse
environmental impacts.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use. FMCSA determined that it is not a ``significant energy action''
under that E.O. because it is not economically significant and is not
likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does
not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 390 as
follows:

PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 390 is revised to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144,
31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678;
sections 212, 217, 229, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767;
sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4114 and amended
by sections 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-
1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat 1144, 1745; sections
32101(d) and 34934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec.
2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  390.23 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  390.23  Relief from regulations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section and Sec.  390.25, the exemption shall not exceed the duration
of the motor carrier's or driver's direct assistance in providing
emergency relief, or 30 days from the date of the initial declaration
of the emergency or the exemption from the regulations by the FMCSA
Field Administrator, whichever is less.
    (B) If a Governor who declares an emergency caused by a shortage of
residential heating fuel (namely heating oil, natural gas, and
propane), subsequently determines at the end of the 30-day period
immediately following the declaration that the emergency shortage has
not ended, and extends the declaration of an emergency for up to 2
additional 30-day periods, this exemption shall remain in effect up to
the end of such additional periods, not to exceed 60 additional days,
for a motor carrier or driver providing residential heating fuel in the
geographic area designated by the Governor's declaration of emergency.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87: October 14,
2014.
T.F. Scott Darling, III
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-25127 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 491-492]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 4, 2016, from 8:30
a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also
be Web cast and will be available at the following link https://collaboration.fda.gov/vrbpac030416/. Answers to commonly asked
questions including information regarding special accommodations due to
a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh or Denise Royster, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7107 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On March 4, 2016, the committee will meet in open session
to discuss and make recommendations on the selection of strains to be
included in the influenza virus vaccines for the 2016-2017 influenza
season.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 19, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 12:40 p.m. and 1:40 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before February 10, 2016.
Time allotted for each presentation may be

limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by February
11, 2016.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Sujata Vijh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 31, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-33263 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49510-49511]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0778]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Indian River, Titusville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the NASA Railroad Bridge (Jay Jay
Bridge) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River), mile
876.6, Titusville, Florida. This modified deviation is necessary to
allow the bridge owner, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) to continue repairs to the bridge. Due to delays and damage
caused by Hurricane Irma, additional repairs will be required causing
the bridge to remain closed to navigation periodically throughout the
day. This deviation is deemed necessary for the continued safe
operation of the bridge.

DATES: This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from
October 26, 2017 through 4 p.m. on October 31, 2017. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on September 27,
2017 until October 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0778 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this modified
temporary deviation, call or email LT Allan Storm, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division; telephone 904-714-
7616, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2017, the Coast Guard
published a temporary deviation entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River, Titusville,
FL'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 39665). Under that temporary
deviation, from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2017 to 4 p.m. on September 26,
2017, the bridge would remain closed to navigation from 8 a.m. to noon
and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The bridge owner,

NASA, has requested an extension of time for the temporary deviation
from the operating schedule that governs the NASA Railroad Bridge (Jay
Jay Bridge) to complete bridge repairs, due to delays and storm damage
related to Hurricane Irma. The bridge is a single leaf bascule railroad
bridge with a seven foot vertical clearance in the closed position. The
normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.261(j).
    The deviation period is from 8 a.m. on September 27, 2017 to 4 p.m.
on October 31, 2017. During this period, the bridge is allowed to
remain closed to navigation from 8 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Barry L. Dragon,
Director, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-23322 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48498-48501]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15861]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97959; File No. SR-BOX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule for Trading on the BOX Options Market LLC Facility To Change
How Certain Complex Orders Are Assessed Within the Fee Structure

July 21, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 18, 2023, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule for
trading on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility to
change how certain Complex Orders are assessed within the fee
structure, specifically each leg of a Complex Orders that executes
against the BOX Book \5\ instead of the Complex Order Book.\6\ The text
of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of
the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and also on
the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Central Order Book'' or ``BOX Book'' means the
electronic book of orders on each single option series maintained by
the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule 100(a)(10).
    \6\ The term ``Complex Order Book'' means the electronic book of
Complex Orders maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule
7240(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to change how certain Complex Orders are assessed within the fee
structure, specifically each leg of a Complex Orders that executes
against the BOX Book \7\ instead of the Complex Order Book.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``Central Order Book'' or ``BOX Book'' means the
electronic book of orders on each single option series maintained by
the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule 100(a)(10).
    \8\ The term ``Complex Order Book'' means the electronic book of
Complex Orders maintained by the BOX Trading Host. See BOX Rule
7240(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a Participant may enter a Complex Order with the intent of
that Order executing against another Complex Order on the Complex Order
Book, the BOX Trading System allows single legs within the Complex
Order to execute against orders on the BOX Book.\9\ Currently, each leg
of a Complex Order executed against the BOX Book is treated as a
Complex Order for purposes of the Fee Schedule and subject to the fees
detailed in Section VI (Complex Order Transaction Fees). The Exchange
now proposes to amend Section VI.B (Orders on BOX Book Executed Against
Complex Orders) of the BOX Fee Schedule to include language stating
that each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX Book will be
treated as a standard order for purposes of the Fee Schedule and now be
subject to Section IV (Electronic Transaction Fees). Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend Section VI.B as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BOX Rule 7240.

    Each order on the BOX Book executed against a Complex Order and
each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX Book will be
treated as a standard order for purposes of the Fee Schedule and
subject to Section IV.A (Electronic Transaction Fees for Non-Auction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions).

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable because the
Exchange's fee structures for electronic non-auction transactions and
Complex Orders are designed to independently attract liquidity and to
reward Participants for their order flow. Specifically, when a Complex
Order interacts with the BOX Book, the orders in the BOX Book are
assessed electronic transaction fees for non-auction transactions.\10\
In contrast, the legs of the Complex Order involved in the same
transaction are assessed fees from a different section of the BOX Fee
Schedule, which may be confusing to Participants.\11\ As such, the
Exchange proposes to assess each leg of a Complex Order that trades
against the BOX Book the electronic transaction fees for non-auction
transactions detailed in Section IV.A of the BOX Fee Schedule. The
Exchange believes that assessing each leg of a Complex Order according
to the fee structure applicable to electronic non-auction transactions
(which may increase or decrease fees or result in BOX providing no
rebate or a smaller rebate), is reasonable because such orders may
benefit from the liquidity on the BOX Book in addition to the liquidity
on the Complex Order Book. The Exchange believes further that the
proposed changes are reasonable because they add clarity to the Fee
Schedule by expressly providing which fees will be assessed to the legs
of a Complex Order when the legs of a Complex Order interact with the
BOX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BOX Fee Schedule Section VI.B.
    \11\ Although this is not specified expressly in the Fee
Schedule, the legs of Complex Orders trading against the BOX Book
are currently assessed Complex Order transaction fees in BOX Fee
Schedule Section VI.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Complex Orders from Public Customers are
assessed no fee or provided a rebate of $0.50 depending on the contra
party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny
Interval Classes and are assessed no fee or provided a rebate

of $0.90 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making
or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes. Electronic
transaction fees in non-auction transactions for Public Customers are
currently assessed no fee or provided a rebate of $0.20 depending on
the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in
Penny Interval Classes, are assessed no fee or provided a rebate of
$0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or
taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes, and are assessed no fee
or rebate for transactions in SPY. Complex Order SPY transactions are
assessed the fee or provided the rebate for Penny Interval Classes as
SPY is a Penny Interval Class. Therefore, the proposal will result in
no fee assessment or BOX providing a smaller rebate for the legs of
Public Customer Complex Orders that trade against the BOX Book.
    Similarly, Complex Orders from Professional Customers and Broker
Dealers are currently provided a rebate of $0.30 or assessed a fee of
$0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or
taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes and are provided a rebate of
$0.30 or assessed a fee between $0.98 and $1.00 depending on the contra
party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny
Interval Classes. Electronic transaction fees in non-auction
transactions for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers are
currently assessed a fee between $0.15 and $0.60 depending on the
contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in
Penny Interval Classes, are assessed a fee between $0.15 and $0.95
depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking
liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes, and are assessed a fee between
$0.15 and $0.60 depending on the contra party and whether the order is
making or taking liquidity for transactions in SPY. Complex Order SPY
transactions are assessed the fee or provided the rebate for Penny
Interval Classes as SPY is a Penny Interval Class. Therefore, the
proposal may increase or decrease fees or result in BOX providing no
rebate for the legs of Professional Customer and Broker Dealer Complex
Orders that trade against the BOX Book depending on the contra party
and whether the class traded is a Penny Interval Class, a Non-Penny
Interval class, or SPY.
    Lastly, Complex Orders from Market Makers are currently provided a
rebate of $0.30 or assessed a fee of $0.50 depending on the contra
party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny
Interval Classes and are provided a rebate of $0.30 or a fee between
$0.98 and $1.00 depending on the contra party and whether the order is
making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval classes. Electronic
transaction fees in non-auction transactions for Market Makers are
currently assessed a fee between $0.00 and $0.50 depending on the
contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in
Penny Interval Classes, are assessed a fee between $0.00 and $0.95
depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking
liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes, and are assessed a fee between
$0.00 and $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is
making or taking liquidity for transactions in SPY. Complex Order SPY
transactions are assessed the fee or provided the rebate for Penny
Interval Classes as SPY is a Penny Interval Class. Therefore, the
proposal may increase or decrease fees or result in BOX providing no
rebate for the legs of Market Maker Complex Orders that trade against
the BOX Book depending on the contra party and whether the class traded
is a Penny Interval Class, a Non-Penny Interval Class, or SPY.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change discussed above will
allow both sides of a transaction executed on BOX to be assessed
consistently and will add clarity by expressly providing how fees will
be assessed for each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX
Book.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable because the
Exchange's fee structures for both electronic non-auction transactions
and Complex Orders are designed to independently attract liquidity and
to reward Participants for their order flow. Specifically, when a
Complex Order interacts with the BOX Book, the orders in the BOX Book
are assessed electronic transaction fees for non-auction
transactions.\13\ In contrast, the legs of the Complex Order involved
in the same transaction are assessed fees from a different section of
the BOX Fee Schedule, which may be confusing to Participants.\14\ As
such, the Exchange proposes to assess each leg of a Complex Order
traded against the BOX Book the electronic transaction fees for non-
auction transactions in Section IV.A of the BOX Fee Schedule. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to assess the same fees for the legs
of Complex Orders as single-leg orders because the legs of Complex
Orders executed against the BOX Book are executed as if they were
single-leg orders.\15\ The Exchange believes that the proposed change
will allow both sides of a transaction executed on BOX to be assessed
consistently, and will add clarity by expressly providing how fees will
be assessed for each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX
Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BOX Fee Schedule Section VI.B.
    \14\ Although this is not specified expressly in the Fee
Schedule, the legs of Complex Orders trading against the BOX Book
are currently assessed Complex Order transaction fees in BOX Fee
Schedule Section VI.A.
    \15\ The Exchange notes that Complex Orders will be
automatically executed against bids and offers on the BOX Book for
the individual legs of the Complex Order to the extent that the
Complex Order can be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by
such bids and offers. See BOX Rule 7240(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that to the extent the legs of
Complex Orders are assessed lower or higher fees or provided a smaller
rebate or no rebate, this proposal is reasonable because such orders
may benefit from the liquidity on the BOX Book in addition to the
liquidity on the Complex Order Book. The Exchange notes that Complex
Orders may receive executions for each leg of a Complex Order against
the BOX Book when the Complex Order would not otherwise have received
an execution in the Complex Order Book. The Exchange notes further that
another exchange assesses fees similarly to the proposal.\16\ The
Exchange believes that, although some transactions will be assessed
lower or higher fees or provided a smaller rebate or no rebate under
the proposal, the Complex Order fee structure is still designed to
attract order flow and will allow BOX to remain a competitive venue for
Complex Order flow. The Exchange

believes further that the proposed changes are reasonable because they
add clarity to the Fee Schedule by expressly providing which fees will
be assessed to the legs of a Complex Order when the legs of a Complex
Order interact with the BOX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGX'') Options Fee
Schedule (providing that standard fee codes are applicable to
Complex Orders that leg into the Simple Book). The Simple Book on
Cboe EDGX is the regular electronic book of orders. There is an
exception for fee code ZD which corresponds to: ``Complex order legs
into Simple Book, Customer'' and a fee of ``FREE.'' The Exchange
notes that, although such Customer Complex Orders are free, the
standard Cboe EDGX rates would provide a credit. The Exchange
believes that the Cboe EDGX fee structure for Complex Orders that
leg into the Simple Book uses different rates but is similar in
operation to the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes another mechanism in the BOX Fee Schedule where
both sides of a transaction are assessed fees, in a consistent manner,
from the same section of the Fee Schedule. In Section IV.B of the BOX
Fee Schedule for PIP and COPIP transactions, each PIP Order or COPIP
Order that executes against an Unrelated Order on the BOX Book shall be
treated as a non-auction transaction.\17\ Specifically, both sides of
the same transaction where one is an Unrelated Order entered into the
BOX market during a PIP and the other is a PIP Order, are assessed fees
from the same section of the BOX Fee Schedule--Section IV.A (Electronic
Transaction Fees for Non-Auction Transactions). The Exchange believes
that this structure provides clarity to the Fee Schedule and reduces
Participant confusion about how these executions are treated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For the PIP, an Unrelated Order is a non-Improvement Order
entered into the BOX market during a PIP. For the COPIP, an
Unrelated Order is a non-Improvement Order entered on BOX during a
COPIP or BOX Book Interest during a COPIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the BOX Fee Schedule, including Section VI
(Complex Order Transaction Fees), assesses fees and credits according
to the account type of the Participant originating the order and the
contra party.\18\ The result of this structure is that a Participant
does not know the fee it will be charged when submitting certain
orders. The Exchange believes that this uncertainty is reasonable
because each section of the BOX Fee Schedule is designed to
independently attract order flow and to compete with exchanges that
have similar fee structures.\19\ Similarly, the proposed change
contains some uncertainty about which fees will be assessed because
Participants may not know ahead of time whether their Complex Order
will interact with the Complex Order Book or the BOX Book. As a result,
Participants must recognize when submitting a Complex Order to BOX that
they could be assessed a range of fees or rebates and must expect the
highest applicable fee or lowest applicable rebate such that fees
(rebates) may be lower (higher) than their expectations. The Exchange
notes that under the proposal, Public Customer Complex Orders will not
pay a fee regardless of whether the Complex Order executes in the
Complex Order Book or the BOX Book, however, such orders will receive a
smaller rebate or no rebate if the legs of the Complex Order execute
against the BOX Book. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed
changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposed
fee structure will apply uniformly to all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See BOX Fee Schedule Sections IV.A (Electronic Non-Auction
Transactions) and VI.A (Complex Order Transaction Fees).
    \19\ See Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'') Options 7 Section 4
(Complex Order Fees and Rebates) and MIAX Emerald, LLC Options
Exchange Fee Schedule (Transaction Fees). The Exchange notes that
Nasdaq ISE assesses fees based on market participant, whether the
market participant is trading against a Priority Customer, maker/
taker, and whether the symbol is a Select or non-Select Symbol,
whereas BOX varies fees based on account type, contra party, maker/
taker, and whether the class is a Penny Interval Class or a Non-
Penny Interval Class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal, to the extent it
increases or decreases fees or provides smaller rebates or no rebates,
remains competitive with other options markets. The Exchange notes that
it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with
other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and rebates in response, and because market participants may readily
adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the
degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited. The Exchange notes that another
exchange has a similar fee structure.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because the Exchange does not believe that the proposal
will place any category of market participant at a competitive
disadvantage. Specifically, the Exchange believes that applying Section
IV.A (Electronic Transaction Fees for Non-Auction Transactions) to the
legs of Public Customer Complex Orders that trade against the BOX Book
does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the
fee structure contained in Section IV.A is designed to attract Public
Customer order flow which increases the number of executions on the
Exchange, thus benefiting all market participants. The Exchange notes
that, as discussed above, although the Public Customer rebates in
Section IV.A are smaller than Public Customer rebates in Section VI
(Complex Order Transaction Fees), Public Customers benefit from the
additional liquidity available on the BOX Book.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will
provide all Participants with consistency and clarity regarding how
Complex Order fees are assessed on BOX. The Exchange notes that all
Participants sending a Complex Order to BOX that interacts with the BOX
Book will be subject to fees and rebates already in place on the
Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\22\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-BOX-2023-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-BOX-2023-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-BOX-2023-19 and should be
submitted on or before August 17, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15861 Filed 7-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P