[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2609-2611]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00643]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0781; FRL-9920-52-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions respectively concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum refinery
coking operations, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
emissions from stationary combustion sources. We are approving local
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 23, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2015. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0781, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available on-line at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous
access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213)
244-1810<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency             Rule No.               Rule title                  Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.........................         1114  Petroleum Refinery Coking                   5/3/13         2/10/14
                                               Operations.
VCAPCD.........................           54  Sulfur Compounds..................         1/14/14         5/13/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 5, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD, Rule
1114, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.
    On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD,
Rule 54, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is not an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 1114. We approved an
earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 54 into the SIP on April 19, 2000 (65 FR
20913).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1114
addresses petroleum refinery coking operations and is designed to
minimize VOC emissions generated during the delayed coking process. It
requires that coke drums be depressurized to less than two psig prior
to venting to atmosphere.
    Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to sulfur
dioxide (SO2), ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an
array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and
increased asthma symptoms. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to
submit regulations that control SO2 emissions. VCAPCD Rule
54 limits emissions of sulfur compounds to the atmosphere from fossil
fuel combustion in Ventura. The rule adds a .075 ppm 1-hour
SO2 facility property line concentration limit consistent
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated
nationally in 2010. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) for SCAQMD
and VCAPCD have more information about these various rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    40 CFR part 81 describes SCAQMD as regulating a non-attainment area
classified as extreme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. VCAPCD is currently
designated as being ``better than the national standards'' for the 1971
NAAQS for SO2. Therefore, VCAPCD does not need to implement
RACT at this time, but it must comply with enforceability and other CAA
requirements for SO2. SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA
section 110(a)(2), must not interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP
control requirements in non-attainment areas without ensuring
equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'', 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations'', EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'', EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. 40 CFR 60.103a, ``Work Practice Standards'', EPA, July 1, 2011
edition.
    5. Federal Register ``Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology
Review and New Source Petroleum Standards; Proposed Rule'', EPA, 79 FR
36879, June 30, 2014.
    6. 40 CFR 50.17, ``National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide), EPA, June 22, 2010.
    7. Method 100.1, ``Source Test Protocol for Determining Oxygen
Corrected Pollutant Concentrations from Combustion Sources with High
Stack Oxygen Content Based on Carbon Dioxide Emissions'', SCAQMD, March
3, 2011.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The
respective TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    We have no recommendations for SCAQMD Rule 1114 at this time. Our
TSD for Rule 54 describes an additional revision that we recommend for
the next time VCAPCD modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by February 19, 2015, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on March 23, 2015. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 23, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(441)(i)(C) and
(c)(442)(i)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (441) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 54, ``Sulfur Compounds,'' revised on January 14, 2014.
    (442) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1114, ``Petroleum Refinery Coking Operations,'' adopted on
May 3, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-00643 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45320-45322]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16485]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78244; File No. SR-BX-2016-037)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Limit Order Protection

July 7, 2016.
    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 June 24, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 4757, entitled ``Book
Processing'' to adopt a Limit Order Protection or ``LOP'' for members
accessing the BX.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new mechanism to protect against
erroneous Limit Orders which are entered into BX. Specifically, this
new feature addresses risks to market participants of human error in
entering Limit Orders at unintended prices. LOP would prevent certain
Limit Orders from executing or being placed on the Order Book at prices
outside pre-set standard limits. The System would reject those Limit
Orders, rather than executing them automatically. The proposed LOP
feature is similar to a risk feature which exists today on BX \3\ and
is available for Options Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c) and Section 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new feature, LOP for Limit Orders,
which would reject Limit Orders back to the member when the order
exceeds certain defined logic. The Exchange intends to apply LOP system
wide. The Exchange reserves the ability to temporarily disable LOP for
certain securities in the event of extraordinary market conditions in a
certain symbol.\4\ Specifically, the LOP feature would prevent certain
Limit Orders at prices outside of pre-set standard limits (``LOP
Limit'') from being accepted by the System. LOP shall apply to all
Quotes and Orders, including any modified Orders.\5\ LOP would not
apply to Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders \6\ or Intermarket
Sweep Orders (ISO).\7\ A Market Maker Peg Order is a passive order type
which will not otherwise remove liquidity from the Order Book. This
order type was designed to assist Market Makers with meeting their
quoting obligations. Market Makers have a diverse business model as
compared with other market participants. Excluding the Market Maker Peg
Order from the LOP will assist Market Makers in meeting their quoting
obligations. The Exchange believes that because Market Makers have
other risk protections in place to prevent them from quoting outside of
their financial means, the risk level for erroneous trades is not the
same as with other market participants. Market Makers have more
sophisticated infrastructures than other market participants and are
able to manage their risk, particularly with quoting, utilizing other
tools which may not be available to other market participants. An ISO
is immediately executable within BX against orders against which they
are marketable. The ISO designation on an order presumes that the
market participant has satisfied their obligation to all protected
quotes up to the limit of the ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, LOP may cause a greater number of orders to be
rejected in a very volatile market. In the event that the Exchange
were to disable LOP in a particular symbol temporarily, the Exchange
would immediately notify market participants by sending an alert via
an Equities Trader Alert. The Exchange would enable LOP in that
symbol as soon as is reasonably practicable and send an updated
alert notifying participants that LOP was enabled.
    \5\ If an Order is modified, LOP will review the order anew and,
if LOP is triggered, such modification will not take effect and the
original order will be rejected.
    \6\ A ``Market Maker Peg Order'' is an Order Type designed to
allow a Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at
a displayed price that is compliant with the quotation requirements
for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). The displayed price
of the Market Maker Peg Order is set with reference to a ``Reference
Price'' in order to keep the displayed price of the Market Maker Peg
Order within a bounded price range. A Market Maker Peg Order may be
entered through RASH or FIX only. A Market Maker Peg Order must be
entered with a limit price beyond which the Order may not be priced.
The Reference Price for a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is
the then-current National Best Bid (National Best Offer), or if no
such National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the most recent
reported last-sale eligible trade from the responsible single plan
processor for that day, or if none, the previous closing price of
the security as adjusted to reflect any corporate actions (e.g.,
dividends or stock splits) in the security. See BX 4702(b)(7).
    \7\ An Intermarket Sweep or ISO Order, which is an Order that is
immediately executable within BX against Orders against which they
are marketable, is not subject to LOP. See BX Rule 6951(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOP would be operational each trading day. LOP would not be
operational during trading halts and pauses. Also, LOP would not apply
in the event that there is no established LOP Reference Price.\8\ The
LOP Reference Price shall be the current National Best Bid or Best
Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders and the offer for buy orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, if there is a one-sided quote or if the LOP
Reference Price is less than the greater of 10% or $0.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to not accept incoming Limit Orders that
exceed the LOP Reference Threshold. Limit Orders will not be accepted
if the price of the Limit Order is greater than the LOP Reference
Threshold for a buy Limit Order. Limit Orders will not be accepted if
the price of the Limit Order is less than the LOP Reference Threshold
for a sell Limit Order. The LOP Reference Threshold for buy orders will
be the LOP Reference Price (offer) plus the applicable percentage
specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Reference Threshold for sell
orders will be the LOP Reference Price (bid) minus the applicable
percentage specified [sic] in the LOP Limit. The LOP Limit shall be the
greater of 10% of the LOP Reference Price or $0.50 for all securities
across all trading sessions. The LOP Reference Price shall be the
current National Best Bid or Best Offer (NBBO), the bid for sell orders
and the offer for buy orders.
    The Exchange also notes that LOP will be applicable on all
protocols.\9\ The LOP feature will be mandatory for all BX members. The
Exchange proposes to implement this rule within ninety (90) days of the
approval of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will issue an
Equities Trader Alert in advance to inform market participants of such
implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BX maintains several communications protocols for members to
use in entering Orders and sending other messages to BX, such as:
OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by mitigating risks to market participants of human error in
entering Limit Orders at clearly unintended prices. The proposals are
appropriate and reasonable, because they offer protections for Limit
Orders which should encourage price continuity and, in turn, protect
investors and the public interest by reducing executions occurring at
dislocated prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed LOP feature would assist with the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets by mitigating the risks associated with errors
resulting in executions at prices that are away from the Best Bid or
Offer and potentially erroneous. Further the proposal protects
investors from potentially receiving

executions away from the prevailing prices at any given time. The
Exchange proposes LOP to avoid a series of improperly priced aggressive
orders transacting in the Order Book. The LOP Limit is appropriate
because it seeks to capture improperly priced Limit Orders and reject
them to reduce the risk of, and to potentially prevent, the automatic
execution of Orders at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous.
The System will only execute Limit Orders priced within the LOP Limit.
The proposed limit of greater than 10% or $0.50 is a reasonable measure
to ensure prices remain within the reasonable limits. This protection
will bolster the normal resilience and market behavior that
persistently produces robust reference prices. This feature should
create a level of protection that prevents the Limit Orders from
entering the Order Book outside of an acceptable range for the Limit
Order to execute.
    The LOP will reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated
volatility, and serve to preserve an orderly market in a transparent
and uniform manner, increase overall market confidence, and promote
fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. This feature
is not optional and is applicable to all members submitting Limit
Orders.
4. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
[sic]
    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 LOP feature will provide
market participants with additional price protection from anomalous
executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all
members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe
the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. This type
of risk protection is in place today for BX Options Participants.\12\
Offering this protection to the BX Market Center will not impose any
undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit
equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from
erroneous executions. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c) and Section 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 LOP feature will provide
market participants with additional price protection from anomalous
executions. This feature is not optional and is applicable to all
members submitting Limit Orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe
the proposal creates any significant impact on competition. This type
of risk protection is in place today for BX Options Participants.\13\
Offering this protection to the BX Market Center will not impose any
undue burden on intra-market competition, rather, it would permit
equities and options members to be protected in a similar manner from
erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c) and Section 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-037 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-037. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-037 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16485 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P