[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27958-27959]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0449; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell)
Model 206A, 206B, and 206B3 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified Bell model helicopters. This proposed AD would require
revising the Operating Limitations, Section 1, of the Rotorcraft Flight
Manual (RFM) to add an operating limitation when a litter kit is
installed. This proposed AD is prompted by the need for corresponding
operating limitations prohibiting flight, including hover, with the
litter doorpost removed when certain litter kits are installed. The
actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to add an operating
limitation when a litter kit is installed to prohibit flight with the
doorpost removed to prevent loss of structural integrity of the
fuselage.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(450) 433-0272, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wiley, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(817) 222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the Docket No. ``FAA-2011-
0449, Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-021-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of the docket Web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    Bell reissued RFM Supplement (RFMS) BHT-206A-FMS-8 for the Model
206A, BHT-206B-FMS-8 for the Model 206B, and BHT-206B3-FMS-2 for the
Model 206B3 helicopters, all dated December 30, 2009, approved by
Transport Canada and the FAA. The revisions to the RFMS were
reformatted to match the RFM and to add a ``Type of Operation''
paragraph to Section 1 of the ``Operating Limitations,'' which states:
``Flight, including hover, with litter doorpost removed is not
approved. Litter doorpost may be removed and re-installed with rotor
turning at flat pitch.''

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require revising the RFM by inserting
into the Operating Limitations, Section 1, of the RFM the following
statement: ``Flight, including hover, with litter doorpost removed is
prohibited.'' This revision may be made by pen and ink changes,
inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM, or inserting a copy of the
RFMS dealing with Litter Kits into the RFM as follows: For Model 206A
helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206A-FMS-8, dated December 30, 2009,
into RFM BHT-206A-FM-1, dated July 2, 2009; for Model 206B
helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206B-FMS-8, dated December 30, 2009,
into RFM BHT-206B-FM-1, dated July 2, 2009; and for Model 206B3
helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206B3-FMS-2, dated December 30, 2009,
into RFM BHT-206B3-FM-1, dated March 24, 2010. This limitation is
required to prevent loss of structural integrity of the helicopter
fuselage.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate this proposed AD would affect 1,463 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The cost to revise the operating limitations section of the
RFM for each helicopter would be negligible, and there are no required
parts.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic
evaluation.

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.
    We are 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Docket No. FAA-2011-0449;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-021-AD.

    Applicability: Model 206A, 206B, and 206B3 helicopters, with
Litter Kit, part number 206-706-122 or 206-706-324, installed,
certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Within 6 months, unless accomplished previously.
    To add an operating limitation when a litter kit is installed to
prohibit flight, including hover, with the litter doorpost removed
to prevent loss of structural integrity of the fuselage, do the
following:
    (a) Revise the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) by inserting into
the Operating Limitations, Section 1, of the RFM the following
statement: ``Flight, including hover, with the litter doorpost
removed is prohibited.'' This revision may be made by pen and ink
changes, inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM, or inserting a
copy of the RFM Supplement (RFMS) dealing with Litter Kits as
follows: For Model 206A helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206A-FMS-8,
dated December 30, 2009, into RFM BHT-206A-FM-1, dated July 2, 2009;
for Model 206B helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206B-FMS-8, dated
December 30, 2009, into RFM BHT-206B-FM-1, dated July 2, 2009; and
for Model 206B3 helicopters--inserting RFMS BHT-206B3-FMS-2, dated
December 30, 2009, into RFM BHT-206B3-FM-1, dated March 24, 2010.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, ATTN: Mark Wiley,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations
and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information about
previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 5300:
Fuselage structure (general).

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 31, 2011.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-11753 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9070]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-62]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American
Airlines, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-4867
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>), 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-4867.
    Petitioner: American Airlines, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 121.438; 121.652.
    Description of Relief Sought: American Airlines, Inc. requests an
exemption to use the combined line operating flight time from the
Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 for the purposes of satisfying the 75 hour
line operating flight time requirement for crew pairing and to combine
the pilot in command (PIC) flight time from either the Boeing 757,
Boeing 767, or both to satisfy the requirement of 100 hours of PIC
operational flight time, in order to operate to the normal Category I
and Category II minimums.

[FR Doc. 2016-03710 Filed 2-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1565]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

New Information Collection:
    Study of Marketing and Delivery of Financial Products to
Individual Investors, OMB Control No. 3235-xxxx; SEC File No. 270-
561.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for
approval.
    The Commission has engaged an outside contractor to undertake a
study that will involve collecting, categorizing, and analyzing
empirical data regarding the marketing, sale and delivery of financial
products, accounts, programs and services offered to individual
investors by broker-dealers and investment advisers. The contractor's
findings will be summarized in a report for the Commission.
    Participation in the study will be voluntary. Information collected
during the study will not be kept confidential, except that the
identity of a study participant, and information that would identify a
participant to anyone outside the study will not be disclosed without
the participant's consent, except as required by law. Participants in
the study are expected to include broker-dealers, investment advisers,
individual investors, investor advocates and industry groups. We
estimate that there would be approximately 330 participants in the
study at an estimated 1.5 hours for a total annual burden of
approximately 500 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington DC 20503 or send an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    January 3, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-300 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27091]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80870]

Commission Statement Concerning a Request for an Interpretation
as to Whether a Particular Agreement Is a Swap, Security-Based Swap, or
Mixed Swap

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Commission statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is
publishing this statement concerning a request for an interpretation as
to whether a particular agreement is a swap, security-based swap, or
mixed swap.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bernstein, Senior Special
Counsel, Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and Markets,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Andrew Schoeffler, Special Counsel, Office of
Capital Markets Trends, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-
3860; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

Statement

    This statement pertains to a letter that Commission staff received
from Breakaway Courier Corporation (``Breakaway''), through its
counsel, requesting a joint interpretation from the Commission and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') pursuant to Rule 3a68-2
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') as to
whether a particular agreement, contract, or transaction (or class
thereof) is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.\1\ Breakaway's
request relates to a contract labeled as a Reinsurance Participation
Agreement (``RPA''), which it has previously executed with Applied
Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (``AUCRA'').\2\
According to Breakaway's submission, it entered into two RPAs with
AUCRA, one of which has a stated effective date of July 1, 2009, and
the other of July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.3a68-2. The letter specifically refers to the
corresponding rule for the CFTC's process, Rule 1.8 under the
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''). 17 CFR 1.8.
    \2\ A copy of Breakaway's submission may be found at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2017/2017-331-tm-exhibit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the CFTC jointly adopted Exchange Act Rule 3a68-
2 and CEA Rule 1.8 in 2012 \3\ pursuant to Section 712(d)(4) of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank
Act'').\4\ The rules established a process for parties to request a
joint interpretation as to whether a particular agreement, contract, or
transaction (or class thereof) is a swap, security-based swap, or a
mixed swap. Among other things, the rules set forth the information
required to be included in a request and a process for withdrawing a
request. Rule 3a68-2 also includes requirements governing the manner
and timing by which the two agencies must act after the receipt of a
complete submission under the rule, if they determine to issue such
joint interpretation. In addition, paragraph (e)(5) of Rule 3a68-2
provides that ``[i]f the Commission and the [CFTC] do not issue a joint
interpretation within the time period described in paragraph (e)(1) or
(e)(3) [of the rule], each of the Commission and the [CFTC] shall
publicly provide the reasons for not issuing such a joint
interpretation within the applicable timeframes.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Further Definition of ``Swap,'' ``Security-Based Swap,''
and ``Security-Based Swap Agreement''; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based
Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release No. 67453 (Jul.
18, 2012), 77 FR 48207 (Aug. 13, 2012) (``Product Definitions
Adopting Release'').
    \4\ See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). All references to
``Title VII'' in this statement shall refer to Title VII of the
Dodd-Frank Act, which established a comprehensive new regulatory
framework for swaps and security-based swaps.
    \5\ Paragraph (e)(5) of CFTC Rule 1.8 contains identical
language (other than reversing the references to the two
commissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of Rule 3a68-2, the Commission is
declining to issue a joint interpretation with the CFTC in connection
with Breakaway's request.\6\ The Commission understands that the status
of the RPAs is already subject to ongoing private litigation and that
the petitioners' request may bear directly on that litigation. We
believe that the Rule 3a68-2 process is not an appropriate vehicle for
litigants such as Breakaway to obtain the views of the Commission in
connection with issues in ongoing litigation, and we therefore decline
Breakaway's request that we state an interpretive position as to the
proper characterization of the RPAs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Commission staff has consulted and coordinated with CFTC
staff and understands that the CFTC will be issuing a separate
statement on this matter.
    \7\ As we and the CFTC explained when we jointly adopted Rule
3a68-2 in 2012 (as well as the corresponding rule under the CEA),
the purpose of the rule is to ``afford market participants with the
opportunity to obtain greater certainty from the Commissions
regarding the regulatory status of particular Title VII instruments
under the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision should decrease the
possibility that market participants inadvertently might fail to
meet the regulatory requirements applicable to a particular Title
VII instrument.'' See Product Definitions Adopting Release, 77 FR at
48295. We and the CFTC also noted our belief that ``it is essential
that the characterization of an instrument be established prior to
any party engaging in the transactions so that the appropriate
regulatory schemes apply.'' See Product Definitions Adopting
Release, 77 FR at 48297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to help ensure that requests under Rule 3a68-2 are
expeditiously routed to appropriate staff, the Commission encourages
market participants to provide the requests to the Office of the
Secretary, with copies to the Division of Trading and Markets and the
Division of Corporation Finance.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 7, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12140 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42022-42024]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17334]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67412; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to PSX Rule
3301(f)(8) Concerning the Processing of the Price To Comply Order

July 11, 2012.
    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 2, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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 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 clarify how the processing of a Price to
Comply Order under PSX Rule 3301(f)(8) operates based on the method of
entry.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

3301. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the Rule 3200 and 3300 Series
for the trading of securities on PSX.
    (a)-(e)
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into the
System, and shall include:
    (1)-(7) No change.
    (8) ``Price to Comply Order'' are orders that, if, at the time of
entry, a Price to Comply Order would lock or cross the quotation of an
external market, the order will be priced to the current low offer (for
bids) or to the current best bid (for offers) and displayed at a price
one minimum price increment lower than the offer (for bids) or higher
than the bid (for offers). The displayed and undisplayed prices of a
Price to Comply order entered through an OUCH port that crosses the
market will [may] be adjusted once and, depending on the election of
the member firm, either rest on the book or [multiple times depending
upon the election of the member firm and changes to the prevailing
NBBO] be canceled if the previously-locking price becomes available.
The displayed and undisplayed prices of a Price to Comply order entered
through an OUCH port that locks the market will be adjusted once and,
depending on the election of the member firm, either rest on the book,
be canceled, or adjusted a second time if the previously-locking price
becomes available.The displayed and undisplayed prices of a Price to
Comply order entered through a RASH port may be adjusted multiple
times, depending upon changes to the prevailing NBBO.
    (9)-(11) No change.
    (g)-(i) No change.
* * * * *

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
    Phlx is proposing to modify how OUCH port-entered Price to Comply
Orders \3\ will operate. Price to Comply Orders, as described in PSX
Rule 3301(f)(8), allow member firms to quote aggressively and still
comply with the locked and crossed markets provisions of Regulation
NMS.\4\ Phlx recently amended PSX Rule 3301(f)(8) to clarify the effect
that the methods of order entry have on the processing of Price to
Comply Orders.\5\ The rule change clarified that OUCH port-entered
Price to Comply Orders are now eligible for price adjustment either
once or multiple times, depending on the election of the member
firm.\6\ The Exchange noted in the rule change that offering OUCH port
users the ability to have Phlx reprice a Price to Comply Order multiple
times will serve to reduce the excessive volume of orders entered into
the System \7\ and ultimately canceled.\8\ Accordingly, a Price to
Comply Order entered through an OUCH port that a member firm has
designated for multiple price adjustment will be adjusted more than
once in response to changes in the prevailing National Best Bid and
Offer (``NBBO'') to move the displayed price closer to the original
entered price and display the best possible price consistent with the
provisions of Regulation NMS. Prior to the clarifying rule change, OUCH
port-entered Price to Comply Orders that would lock or cross the market
would be adjusted once and thereafter rest on the book. The Exchange
has not implemented the recently-adopted changes \9\ so that it could
subsequently modify how the OUCH port-entered Price to Comply Orders
will operate under PSX Rule 3301(f)(8), as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Price to Comply Order'' is an order such that, if, at the
time of entry, it would lock or cross the quotation of an external
market, the order will be priced to the current low offer (for bids)
or to the current best bid (for offers) and displayed at a price one
minimum price increment lower than the offer (for bids) or higher
than the bid (for offers).
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.610.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66992 (May 15,
2012), 77 FR 30038 (May 21, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-62).
    \6\ Member firms must designate each OUCH protocol order port
that it wishes to use with the multiple price adjustment
functionality, and such ports will also be designated for automatic
cancellation or ``kick out'' of other order types whose price was
adjusted upon entry to prevent a violation of Rule 610(d) of
Regulation NMS. In the absence of designation from a member firm,
the Exchange will default the member's OUCH port(s) to single price
adjustment.
    \7\ As defined by PSX Rule 3301(a).
    \8\ The Exchange noted that the OUCH protocol is used by member
firms that are able to submit a large volume of orders. Such member
firm will often submit a Price to Comply Order at an aggressive
price that it anticipates will be at the NBBO, but it is not
submitted at the NBBO and is not executed after repricing because
the market does not move to the adjusted order price. In such cases,
the member firm will typically submit additional aggressive orders,
which likewise are not executed. Supra note 5.
    \9\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has determined to modify PSX Rule 3301(f)(8) so that a
Price to Comply Order entered via an OUCH port designated for multiple
price adjustment that would lock the market can be adjusted a maximum
of two times--once upon entry and once again to move the displayed
price to the original entered price when it becomes permissible under
Regulation NMS to do so, thereby displaying the best possible price
consistent with the provisions of Regulation NMS. Under the proposed
rule change, such Price to Comply Orders that would cross the market
upon entry would be price adjusted once upon entry to display at a
permissible level and thereafter

cancelled when the previously locking level becomes available. This
cancellation allows the member to resubmit its order at a price more
aggressive than the previously locking price should the member still
desire to do so.\10\ As such, and unlike as described in the recent
rule change, the process applied to OUCH ports designated for multiple
price adjustment will be similar to, yet different than, the process
applied to RASH-entered Price to Comply Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Similarly, orders other than Price to Comply Orders that
are re-priced on entry due to Regulation NMS and submitted via OUCH
ports designated for multiple price adjustment of Price to Comply
Orders will be cancelled when the previously locking price level
becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx is not changing how Price to Comply Orders entered via an OUCH
port not designated for multiple price adjustment operate. Such orders
will continue to be adjusted once and thereafter remain on the book.
Likewise, Phlx is not proposing to change how price adjusted orders are
treated in terms of priority. Like RASH-entered Price to Comply Orders,
each time the OUCH-entered order is price adjusted it will receive a
new timestamp for purposes of determining its price/display/time
priority.\11\ As such, an OUCH-entered Price to Comply Order that is
repriced upon entry will initially be prioritized among non-displayed
orders at the locking price based on its time of entry. Upon the second
repricing of an OUCH-entered Price to Comply Order that is entered at a
locking price, the order will be prioritized among displayed orders at
the previously locking price based on its time of repricing and thus is
treated as a new displayed order in terms of priority. There is no
guarantee that the OUCH-entered Price to Comply Order will receive
priority amongst displayed orders when it becomes actionable after
repricing, as other displayed orders may be entered before the Price to
Comply Order is repriced. This priority treatment is identical to the
treatment provided to RASH-entered Price to Comply Orders that are
price adjusted. The Exchange will provide public notice five business
days prior to the implementation date of the changes proposed herein,
together with the changes proposed in the recent rule filing \12\ not
modified by this proposal, and such implementation date will be no
later than thirty calendar days from the date of filing this proposal
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As described in PSX Rule 3307(a)(1).
    \12\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. The Exchange
believes this proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act and,
specifically, Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS in that it is
designed to prevent orders from locking and crossing the market or
trading through protected quotes, while also promoting a more efficient
market. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will promote the efficient use of the Exchange by reducing the
number of orders entered into the market and ultimately canceled. The
proposed rule change will accomplish this by providing the member firms
that tend to enter the greatest number of such orders via OUCH ports an
option to have the Exchange reprice two times a single order that would
lock the market upon entry. The Exchange also believes that permitting
a high volume user the option to continue to have the Exchange reprice
its Price to Comply Order only upon order entry, when appropriate, will
ensure member firms with internal systems that act in reliance on this
function will continue to operate without disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange has
provided the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-91 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-91. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-91 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17334 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45332-45334]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16487]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78246; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
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, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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 Nasdaq's Rule 4757, entitled ``Book
Processing'' to adopt a Limit Order Protection or ``LOP'' for members
accessing the Nasdaq Market Center.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.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 the Nasdaq Market Center.
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 the NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'') \3\ and is available
for Options Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NOM 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. 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.\4\ LOP
would not apply to Market Orders, Market Maker Peg Orders \5\ or
Intermarket Sweep Orders (ISO).\6\ 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 the Nasdaq Market Center 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\ 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.
    \5\ 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, FIX or QIX 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)
(including Nasdaq), 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 Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(7).
    \6\ An Intermarket Sweep or ISO Order, which is an Order that is
immediately executable within the Nasdaq Market Center against
Orders against which they are marketable, is not subject to LOP. See
NASDAQ Rule 4702. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LOP would be operational each trading day, except for orders
designated for opening and closing crosses and initial public
offerings. LOP would not be operational during trading halts and
pauses. Since Nasdaq Rules provided controls for the opening, closing
and initial public offering processes within the Rulebook, the proposed
protections are rendered ineffective for those processes.\7\ Members
will be subject to certain parameters when submitting Limit Orders into
the Order Book. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Nasdaq Rulebook provides specific rules for certain
auction mechanisms, such as the opening, closing and initial public
offering process which contain their own protections with respect to
the entry of Orders within those mechanisms and therefore are not
subject to LOP. With respect to the open, Nasdaq has a process,
namely the ``Nasdaq Opening Cross,'' which shall occur at the price
that maximizes the number of shares. See Rule 4752(a)(2)(F)(i)-
(iii). [sic] With respect to the close, Nasdaq has a process, namely
the ``Nasdaq Closing Cross,'' for determining the price at which
orders shall be executed at the close and for executing those
orders. See Rule 4754(b)(2)(e.) [sic] With respect to initial public
offerings, the Exchange may halt trading in a security that is the
subject of an Initial Public Offering. See Rule 4120(a)(7). The
Exchange's rules do not permit aberrant trading and require a
security must pass the price validation. See Rule 4120(c)(8)(A).
    \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 Nasdaq 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\ Nasdaq maintains several communications protocols for
Participants to use in entering Orders and sending other messages to
the Nasdaq Market Center, such as: OUCH, RASH, QIX, 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 Exchange's proposed LOP
Limit 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.

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 NOM Options Participants.\12\
Offering this protection to the Nasdaq 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NOM 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-NASDAQ-2016-067 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-NASDAQ-2016-067. 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-NASDAQ-2016-067 and should
be submitted on or before August 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16487 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P