[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23503-23506]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10708]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83241; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Its Fees Schedule in Connection With the Exchange's Planned
Migration of Standard Third-Friday Options on the S&P 500 Index to the
Hybrid Trading System From the Hybrid 3.0 System

May 15, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 3, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with
the Exchange's planned migration of standard third-Friday options on
the S&P 500 Index (``SPX options'') to the Hybrid Trading System from
the Hybrid 3.0 System.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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
    By way of background, a.m.-settled standard third-Friday options on
the S&P 500 Index (``SPX options'') were previously traded on the
Hybrid 3.0 trading platform. On April 30, 2018, the Exchange retired
the Hybrid 3.0 platform and transitioned SPX options series then traded
on the Hybrid 3.0 trading platform during Regular Trading Hours
(``RTH'') onto the standard Hybrid trading platform. The Exchange notes
that SPX options were the only product traded on the Hybrid 3.0
platform and consequently, the symbol for these series remains SPX. In
light of SPX's transition to Hybrid, the Exchange proposes to amend its
Fees Schedule with respect to references to Hybrid 3.0 and also adopt
an SPX Select Market-Makers (``SPX SMMs'') financial incentive
program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
April 20, 2018 (SR-CBOE-2018-032). On May 3, 2018, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to Hybrid 3.0
in the Fees Schedule. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to rename the
``Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge (SPX only)'' to the ``SPX Hybrid
Execution Surcharge (SPX only)''. As noted above, SPX options were the
only product available to trade on Hybrid 3.0 and as such, the term
Hybrid 3.0 as used for the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge was
synonymous with SPX options. The Exchange similarly proposes to delete
and update references to Hybrid 3.0 in corresponding Footnote 21. The
Exchange next proposes to eliminate the reference to Hybrid 3.0 in the
``Quoting Bandwidth'' section under ``Trading Permit Descriptions'' in
the Trading Permit and Tier Appointment Fees table. Specifically, the
Fees Schedule currently provides: ``To the extent a Market-Maker is
able to submit electronic quotes in a Hybrid 3.0 class (such as an LMM
that streams quotes in the class or a Market-Maker or LMM that streams
quotes in a series of a Hybrid 3.0 class that trades on the Hybrid
Trading System), the Market-Maker shall receive the quoting bandwidth
allowance to quote in, and only in, that class.'' The Exchange proposes
to eliminate the reference to Hybrid 3.0 class (which includes both SPX
and SPXW) and replace it with ``SPX and/or SPXW''. The Exchange also
proposes to eliminate the parenthetical that follows the new reference,
as it does not believe it's necessary given that the proposed reference
specifies the exact products affected (i.e., SPX and SPXW). The
Exchange notes that no substantive changes are being made by the
proposed ``Hybrid 3.0'' deletions and corresponding reference updates.
    The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt a financial incentive program
for SPX Select Market-Makers (``SPX SMMs''), effective May 1, 2018.
More specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide incentives to
Market-Makers that are appointed as SPX SMMs and meet heightened
quoting obligations.\6\ SPX SMMs that meet the heightened quoting
standard (which shall be explained herein), will receive one Market-
Maker Permit and one SPX Tier Appointment free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SPX SMMs would serve as SPX SMMs during the RTH session only
for a.m.-settled standard third-Friday options on the S&P 500 Index
only (i.e., does not apply to SPXW).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, the Exchange previously appointed Lead
Market-Makers (``LMMs'') in SPX. The Exchange does not intend to
appoint LMMs in SPX following its transition to the Hybrid trading
platform. Rather, the Exchange proposes to provide a financial
incentive to Market-Makers that satisfy heightened quoting standards
and are appointed by the Exchange to serve as SPX SMMs.\7\ Similar to
LMMs, the Exchange proposes to provide that it may approve one or more
Market-Makers to act as an SMM in SPX for terms of at least one
year.\8\ Various factors will be considered by the Exchange in
selecting SPX SMMs, which include: Adequacy of capital, experience in
trading options, presence in the trading crowd, adherence to Exchange
rules and ability to meet the heightened quoting standard, described
further below. The Exchange notes that the factors it considers in
appointing SPX SMMs are the same as the factors it currently uses to
appoint LMMs.\9\ The Exchange also proposes to provide that removal of
an SPX SMM may be effected by the Exchange on the basis of the failure
of the SPX SMM to meet the heightened quoting standards or any other
applicable Exchange Rule, which standard is the same as used for the
removal of LMMs.\10\ If an SPX SMM is removed or if for any reason an
SPX SMM is no longer eligible for, or resigns, its appointment, the
Exchange may appoint one or more interim SPX SMMs for the remainder of
the term or shorter time period designated by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is similar to Market-Makers that serve as LMMs during
the Exchange's Extended Trading Hours Session (``ETH'') (including
SPX LMMs during ETH).
    \8\ On March 23, 2018, the Exchange issued an Exchange Notice
which announced that the Exchange had appointed 4 LMMs (now proposed
to be known as ``SPX SMMs'') in SPX for A.M.-settled SPX options
(P.M.-settled options, which already trade on Hybrid, will continue
to utilize a competing Market-Maker structure without any LMMs). The
SPX SMM appointments will be effective for a one-year period,
beginning on the launch date for SPX trading on Hybrid. The
financial incentive will not apply for the month of April 2018.
    \9\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.15(a)(i).
    \10\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.15(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to quoting obligations, the Exchange first notes that
to the extent the Exchange approves a Market-Maker to act as an SPX
SMM, the SMM must comply with the continuous quoting obligation \11\
and other obligations of Market-Makers described in Cboe Options Rules.
The Exchange proposes that an SPX SMM will receive one Market-Maker
Trading Permit and one SPX Tier Appointment free of charge if it (1)
provides continuous electronic quotes in 95% of all SPX series 90% of
the time in a given month, (2) submits opening quotes that are no wider
than the Opening Exchange Prescribed Width (``OEPW'') within one minute
of the initiation of an opening rotation in any series that is not open
due to the lack of a qualifying quote, on all trading days, to ensure
electronic quotes on the open that allow the series to open, (3) submit
opening quotes that are no wider than the OEPW quote by 8:00 a.m. (CT)
on volatility settlement days and (4) provide quotes for the end-of-
month fair value closing rotation on a rotating basis. The Exchange may
consider other exceptions to this quoting standard based on
demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other mitigating
circumstances. SPX SMMs will not be obligated to satisfy the
aforementioned heightened quoting standard. Rather, SPX SMMs will only
receive a waiver of fees otherwise assessed for one Market-Maker
Trading Permit and one SPX Tier Appointment if they satisfy the
abovementioned heightened quoting standard. If an SPX SMM does not meet
the heightened quoting standard, then they simply will not receive one
free Trading Permit and Tier Appointment for that month. The Exchange
believes the proposed incentive however, will encourage SPX SMMs to
provide significant liquidity in

SPX. Additionally, the Exchange notes that it expects that TPHs may
need to undertake expenses to be able to quote at a significantly
heightened standard in these classes, such as purchase additional
bandwidth. The Exchange notes that the proposed financial incentive
program for SPX SMMs is similar to the rebate program adopted for ETH
LMMs, as both programs offer financial benefits for meeting increased
quoting standards as opposed to providing benefits for those that are
required to meet heightened quoting obligations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., Cboe Options Rule 8.7.
    \12\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5)\14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating references to ``Hybrid 3.0'' in
the Fees Schedule helps avoid confusion by eliminating language that
will be rendered obsolete following the transition of moving the only
product trading on the Hybrid 3.0 platform (i.e., SPX options series)
to the Hybrid trading platform, thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange notes that no substantive changes are being
made by eliminating references to Hybrid 3.0.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer SPX SMMs that meet
a certain heightened quoting standard (described above) one free
Market-Maker Trading Permit and one SPX Tier Appointment given the
potential added costs that an SPX SMM may undertake in order to satisfy
that heightened quoting standard (e.g., having to purchase additional
bandwidth). Additionally, if an SPX SMM does not satisfy the heightened
quoting standard, then it will not receive the proposed free Trading
Permit and Tier Appointment.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only offer the financial incentive to SPX SMMs
because it benefits all market participants trading in the SPX to
encourage SPX SMMs to satisfy the heightened quoting standards, which
may increase liquidity and provide more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads. Because there are no additional required obligations
imposed on SPX SMMs, they receive no additional benefits (e.g., no
participation entitlement). The Exchange notes that creating an
incentive in which SPX SMMs must satisfy a heightened standard
encourages Market-Makers that are appointed as SPX SMMs to provide
significant liquidity in SPX. The Exchange notes that without the
proposed financial incentive, there would not be sufficient incentive
for Trading Permit Holders to undertake an obligation to quote at
heightened levels, which could result in lower levels of liquidity. The
SPX SMM incentive program is also reasonable, as it is designed to
encourage increased quoting to add liquidity in SPX, thereby protecting
investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange also believes the incentive program is not unfairly
discriminatory, as all Trading Permit Holders have the opportunity to
apply to act as SPX SMMs and participate in the incentive program, and
the Exchange will appoint SPX SMMs based on the factors described
above, which are proposed to be set forth in the Fees Schedule and
otherwise disclosed to Trading Permit Holders.\16\ The Exchange notes
that the factors used by the Exchange in appointing SPX SMMs are the
same currently used to appoint LMMs.\17\ The Exchange lastly notes that
a similar financial incentive program was adopted for appointed LMMs in
ETH.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Notice ``Solicitation for SPX Lead Market-
Makers (``LMMs'') During Regular Trading Hours (``RTH'')'' (dated
February 27, 2018).
    \17\ See Cboe Options Rule 8.15(i).
    \18\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 38 and Cboe
Options Rule 6.1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the financial
incentive is offered only to certain market participants (i.e.,
appointed SPX SMMs that meet a heightened quoting standard), those
market participants must meet heightened quoting standards to receive
the financial incentive. Additionally, SPX SMMs may incur additional
costs to meet the heightened quoting standard. The Exchange believes
the financial incentive of one free Trading Permit and Tier Appointment
encourages those market participants to bring liquidity to the Exchange
in SPX options (which benefits all market participants).
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because SPX
options are proprietary products that will only be traded on Cboe
Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market
participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    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 for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \21\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. According to
the Exchange, waiver of the operative delay will allow the immediate
implementation of the SPX SMM program and updated references relating
to ``Hybrid 3.0''. The Exchange also states that delaying the
implementation of the SPX SMM program could result in lower levels of
liquidity, as without the program there may not be sufficient incentive
for Trading Permit Holders to undertake an obligation to quote at
heightened levels. In addition, the Exchange states that the SPX SMM
program does not present any new or novel issues. The Commission
believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. As discussed above by
the Exchange, there are no new or novel issues raised by the proposed
rule change. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-039 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-CBOE-2018-039. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-039 and should be submitted on
or before June 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10708 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45085-45088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17923]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD;
Amendment 39-17872; AD 2014-12-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopter. This
AD requires revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) to include the
appropriate operating limitations for performing Class D external load-
combination operations. This AD was prompted by an inaccurate RFM
provision, which was approved without appropriate limitations for this
model helicopter for carrying Class D external rotorcraft-load
combinations, including human external cargo (HEC). The actions are
intended to require appropriate operating limitations to allow
operators to perform Class D external load-combination operations,
including HEC, in this model helicopter that now meets the Category A
performance standard.

DATES: This AD is effective September 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone
(203) 383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On December 10, 2009, at 74 FR 65496, the Federal Register
published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model
S-92A helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require revising the RFM SA
S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section 1, Operating Limitations, Types of
Operation, by removing the statement ``RESCUE HOIST: Category `A' only
External load operations with Class `D' external loads.'' The NPRM
proposed replacing that statement with ``HOIST: Class D external loads
PROHIBITED.'' Also, the NPRM proposed replacing the words ``RESCUE
HOIST'' in the RFM with ``HOIST''. The NPRM was prompted by a mistake
in the RFM, which allowed ``Class D'' rotorcraft load combinations for
HEC operations for this model helicopter. The Model S-92A RFM did not
include the required one-engine inoperative hover performance and
procedures.
    On September 13, 2012, at 77 FR 56581, the Federal Register
published our supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), which
proposed to revise the actions of the NPRM. The SNPRM proposed to allow
Class D external load operations if the appropriate operating
limitations are included in the RFM, instead of prohibiting rotorcraft
load combinations for HEC operations. The proposed requirements were
intended to require appropriate operating limitations to allow
operators to perform Class D external load-combination operations,
including HEC, in this model helicopter that now meets the Category A
performance standard.

Comments

    After our SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Sikorsky generally concurs with the corrective action but requests
that Paragraph (d)(3)(i) of the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13,
2012), which requires removing a note from the RFM, be deleted from the
AD. Sikorsky commented that removing the note is not appropriate with
respect to applying the 150 pound penalty for the hoist. Sikorsky
states that the 150 pound penalty applies to the drag of the hoist
being installed on the aircraft and, if one would first determine the
maximum gross weight by the chart and then apply the penalty, they
would always be limited to 150 pounds below the maximum gross weight of
the helicopter. Sikorsky states the note is required so pilots do not
erroneously apply a 150 pound penalty to their weight when they are
maximum gross weight limited instead of performance limited. As the
note only applies when the aircraft is performance limited, Sikorsky
requests that it not be removed.
    We agree that the correct instructions need to be inserted in the
Required Actions section, but disagree with Sikorsky's request. Not
removing the note would result in keeping the incorrect instructions
from the original Limitations section. But we are including a
requirement to add the following note to the Weight Limits section of
the RFM to address Sikorsky's comments and to provide accurate
instructions: ``NOTE: If conditions permit, the pilot may go to the
right of the 26,500 pound line on Figure 1-2 to determine the maximum
gross weight and then subtract a 150 pound hoist decrement. The maximum
gross weight

for category `A' operations cannot exceed 26,500 pounds (12,020)
kilograms.''

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment
received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and
that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD
requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. We also
changed the formatting of this AD to meet current publication
requirements. These changes are consistent with the intent of the
proposals in the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012), and will not
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 65 helicopters in the U.S.
registry. The costs for inserting a correction to the RFM are expected
to be minimal.

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.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-12-11 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-17872; Docket
No. FAA-2009-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-76-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an inaccurate Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM) provision, which was approved without
appropriate limitations for this model helicopter for carrying Class
D external rotorcraft-load combinations, including Human External
Cargo (HEC), when this model helicopter was not certificated to
Category A one-engine inoperative (OEI) performance standards,
including fly away capabilities after an engine failure, which is
required for carrying HEC.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 8, 2014.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 90 days, revise the Operating Limitations section of
Sikorsky Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1,
Section I, by inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making
pen and ink changes, as follows:
    (1) In the ``Types of Operation'' section, beneath Hoist, add
the following: The hoist equipment certification installation
approval does not constitute approval to conduct hoist operations.
Operational approval for hoist operations must be granted by the
Federal Aviation Administration. No cabin seats may be installed in
front of station 317 when conducting Human External Cargo hoist
operations, which requires Category A performance capabilities.
    (2) In the ``Flight Limits'' section, add the following:
``HOIST'' When conducting Human External Cargo operations, which
require category `A' performance capabilities, the minimum hover
height is 20 feet AGL and the maximum hover height is 80 feet AGL.
``HOIST'' The collective axis must remain uncoupled when conducting
Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance
capabilities, for the period of time that the person is off the
ground or water and not in the aircraft. This can be accomplished by
either uncoupling the collective axis or by the pilot depressing the
collective trim switch during the pertinent portion of the maneuver.
    (3) In the ``Weight Limits'' section:
    (i) Remove the following: NOTE: The 150 pound hoist decrement
does not preclude Cat A operations at a gross weight of 26,500
pounds with a hoist installed. If conditions permit, the pilot may
go to the right of the 26,500 line on Figure 1-2 to determine a
maximum gross weight up to 26,650 and then subtract 150 pounds.
    (ii) Add the following: NOTE: If conditions permit, the pilot
may go to the right of the 26,500 pound line on Figure 1-2 to
determine the maximum gross weight and then subtract a 150 pound
hoist decrement. The maximum gross weight for category `A'
operations cannot exceed 26,500 pounds (12,020 kilograms).
    (iii) Add the following and insert Figure 1 to Paragraph
(e)(3)(iii) of this AD: ``HOIST'' Maximum gross weight for Human
External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance
capabilities, is limited to the gross weight determined in
accordance with the following Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of
this AD for your altitude and temperature with the air-conditioner,
anti-ice, and bleed air turned off.

    Note 1 to paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this AD: Figure 1 to
Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this AD becomes Figure 1-2A when inserted
in the ``Weight Limits'' section of your RFM.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU14.007

(f) Credit for Actions Previously Completed

    Incorporation of the changes contained in Sikorsky RFM SA S92A-
RFM-003, Part 1, Revision No. 12, approved March 21, 2005, before
the effective date of this AD is considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (e)
of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: John Coffey,
Flight Test Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7173, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support,
mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203)
383-4866, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of this information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510 Flight
Compartment Equipment.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 22, 2014.
S. Frances Cox,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17923 Filed 8-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46254]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1140-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 9-1-2014.
    Filed Date: 7/30/14.
    Accession Number: 20140730-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1141-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Misc. Revenue Surcharge Report filed 7-31-14.
    Filed Date: 7/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20140731-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1142-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Service Agreement--Antero to be
effective 8/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20140731-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18587 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 62329-62330]
[DOCID:fr27no09-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0563]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Preliminary Timetable for the Review of Applications for
Modified Risk Tobacco Products Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Preliminary Timetable for
the Review of Applications for Modified Risk Tobacco Products under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' This guidance is intended for
manufacturers, retailers, importers, and FDA staff. The guidance
describes FDA's current thinking regarding the appropriate preliminary
timetable for its review of applications for Modified Risk Tobacco
Products (MRTPs) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act), as modified by the Federal Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act (Tobacco Control Act).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by February 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Preliminary Timetable for the Review of
Applications for Modified Risk Tobacco Products under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and
Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850-3229.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request or include a fax number to which the draft
guidance document may be sent. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance
document.
    Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850-3229,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Tobacco Control Act
(Public Law 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the act
(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) by, among other things, adding a new chapter
granting FDA important new authority to regulate the manufacture,
marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public
health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
    Section 911 of the act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act,
states: ``(a) No person may introduce or deliver for introduction into
interstate commerce any modified risk tobacco product unless an order
issued pursuant to subsection (g) is effective with respect to such
product'' and ``(d) Any person may file with the Secretary an
application for a modified risk tobacco product.* * *.'' Section 911(g)
of the act provides the criteria under which the agency determines
whether to issue an order that an MRTP may be commercially marketed.
The Tobacco Control Act provides that, within 2 years and 9 months of
the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act, the agency shall issue
regulations or guidance regarding MRTP applications, and those
regulations or guidance shall ``establish a reasonable timetable for
the Secretary to review an application under this section.'' FDA is
issuing this guidance to describe a preliminary timetable the agency
intends to follow until such time as the agency issues more
comprehensive guidance or regulations on MRTP applications. Pending
further guidance or rulemaking, FDA intends to issue a decision on an
MRTP application within 360 days of its receipt by FDA.

II. Significance of Guidance

    FDA is issuing this draft guidance document consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on
``Preliminary Timetable for the Review of Applications for Modified
Risk Tobacco Products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''
It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be
used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statute and regulations.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. The guidance document and received
comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of the guidance document is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fda.gov/
TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm.

    Dated: November 24, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-28515 Filed 11-24-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: February 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8850]
[DOCID:fr21fe06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-52-000]

New York Power Authority, Complainant v. Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

February 13, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 10, 2006, New York Power Authority
(NYPA) filed a formal Complaint against Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc. (Con Edison) pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's
Rule of Practice and Procedures, 18 CFR Sec.  385.206 (2005), alleging
that Con Edison violated the Federal Power Act by illegally charging
NYPA a wholesale transmission rate for deliveries to NYPA's customers
in Long Island that exceeded the lawful tariff rate for the period of
November 18, 1999 through December 31, 2004. NYPA requests refunds for
the overcharged amounts, plus all applicable interest.
    NYPA states that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for Con Edison.
    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 on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
    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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on March 2, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2378 Filed 2-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Linda Chappell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 10/ 2005 03: 42 PM To aflynn@ omb. eop. gov, afraas@ omb. eop. gov cc Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Larry Sorrels/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Todd Hawes/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, William Nickerson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Geoffrey Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Al McGartland/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Chris Dockins/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Heninger/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Ron Evans/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject BART RIA Appendix G Hi Art and Amy,

Attached is Appendix G of the BART RIA. With the draft RIA sent on Wednesday evening ( 6/ 8/ 05) and this appendix, you have a complete draft of the BART RIA. This appendix discusses the additional control scenarios analyzed for the non EGU source categories. We are still in the process of editing and formatting this appendix. If you have questions or comments, please call me.

Have a great day, Linda ________________ Linda M. Chappell PhD US EPA MC C 339 01 RTP, NC 27711 telephone 919.541.2864 fax 919.541.0839


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54269-54270]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0081]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated September 18, 2019, the Grenada Railroad, LLC
(GRYR), a RailUSA limited liability company, petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify
a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0081.
    Applicant: Grenada Railroad, LLC, Mr. Trevor Costilow, General
Manager, Ms. Barbara Wilson, President, 643 First Street, Grenada, MS
38901.
    Specifically, GRYR requests permission to permanently remove the
automatic block signals (ABS) from North Grenada, Mississippi, milepost
(MP) 617.4 to Southaven, Mississippi, MP 403.0. The signal system has
been out of service, but remained in place since January 8, 2013, per
Docket Number FRA-2013-0095. The proposed changes include removal of
the ABS and conversion to Track Warrant Control and Yard Limit rules.
All Highway-Rail Grade Crossings will be retained.
    GRYR explained the ABS is no longer needed in current or
foreseeable future operations of the GRYR. There are substantial costs
in maintaining the ABS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at http://www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.

    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 25, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. 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 http://www.dot.gov/privacy. See
also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-22059 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11027-11031]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03547]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91147; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2021-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

February 17, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b 4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 10, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a new pricing tier, Tape B Tier 3,
and make non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule. The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee changes effective February 10, 2021. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new pricing tier, Tape B Tier 3,
and make non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule.
    The proposed change to adopt a new pricing tier responds to the
current competitive environment where order flow providers have a
choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering
further incentives for ETP

Holders \4\ to send additional liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All references to ETP Holders in connection with this
proposed fee change include Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
February 10, 2021.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
February 1, 2021 (SR-NYSEArca-2021-10). SR-NYSEArca-2021-10 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \7\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\8\ numerous alternative trading systems,\9\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 18% market share.\10\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 10% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See
generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \9\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. With respect to non-marketable order
flow that would provide liquidity on an Exchange against which market
makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16
currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees
that relate to orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
Tape B Tier 3
    The Exchange proposes to introduce a new pricing tier--Tape B Tier
3--for securities with a per share price of $1.00 and above. The
proposed rule change is designed to be available to ETP Holders that
are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market maker
account on the Exchange's options platform (``NYSE Arca Options'') and
is intended to provide such ETP Holders with an incentive to direct
their liquidity-providing orders in Tape B securities to the Exchange.
    As proposed, ETP Holders would qualify for the new Tape B Tier 3
pricing tier if, on a daily basis, measured monthly, they directly
execute providing volume in Tape B Securities during the billing month
that is equal to 0.20% or more of the US consolidated average daily
volume (``US CADV'') \12\ in Tape B Securities and are affiliated with
an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted
executions for the account of a market maker in all issues on NYSE Arca
Options of at least 0.50% of total Customer equity and ETF option ADV
as reported by The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''). ETP Holders
that qualify for the proposed Tape B Tier 3 would receive a credit of
$0.0025 per share for orders that provide liquidity in Tape B
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ US CADV means the United States Consolidated Average Daily
Volume for transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape, excluding
odd lots through January 31, 2014 (except for purposes of Lead
Market Maker pricing), and excludes volume on days when the market
closes early and on the date of the annual reconstitution of the
Russell Investments Indexes. Transactions that are not reported to
the Consolidated Tape are not included in US CADV. See Fee Schedule,
footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the current Tape B Tier 1 and Tape B Tier 2 pricing tiers,
Lead Market Makers (``LMMs'') cannot qualify for the proposed Tape B
Tier 3 pricing tier. For all other fees and credits, tiered or basic
rates would apply based on a firm's qualifying levels.
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to incentivize ETP
Holders to increase the liquidity-providing orders they send to the
Exchange, which would support the quality of price discovery on the
Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders. The
Exchange believes that the proposal would create an added incentive for
ETP Holders to bring additional order flow to a public market. The
Exchange further believes that providing credits to ETP Holders that
are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm could lead to increased
trading on the Exchange's equities and options markets.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ There are currently 54 firms that are both ETP Holders and
OTP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing tier would provide
an incentive for a greater number of ETP Holders to send additional
liquidity to the Exchange in order to qualify for the proposed new
credit because, although the proposed pricing tier has a requirement of
a minimum of options volume, it also requires an ETP Holder to provide
liquidity in Tape B securities at a level below the requirement under
both the Tape B Tier 1 and Tape B Tier 2 pricing tiers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, Tape B Tier 1 requires ETP Holders to execute
providing volume in Tape B Securities that is equal to at least
1.50% of US Tape B CADV. While Tape B Tier 2 provides ETP Holders
multiple ways to earn Tape B Tier 2 credit, at a minimum, ETP
Holders must execute providing volume equal to at least 0.20% of the
US Tape B CADV over the ETP Holder's baseline, which for Tape B Tier
2 is the ETP Holder's Q2 2015 providing ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposed change will provide a
greater incentive to attract additional liquidity from additional ETP
Holders so as to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit. The Exchange
anticipates a small number of ETP Holders could qualify for Tape B Tier
3 if they choose to route their orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other
exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without having a view of ETP
Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any ETP Holder directing orders to the Exchange

in order to qualify for the proposed new pricing tier.
Non-Substantive Change
    The Exchange proposes to make a non-substantive change by deleting
the words ``to the Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book''
from the Fee Schedule. Specifically, in the context of a credit
provided by the Exchange, a fee charged by the Exchange, or routing
fees charged by the Exchange, the Fee Schedule currently utilizes the
words ``to the Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book,''
respectively. The Exchange believes these phrases are superfluous. ETP
Holders understand that when they provide liquidity, they provide it
``to the Book.'' And when they take liquidity, they take it ``from the
Book.'' Similarly, when their orders are routed, they are routed
``outside the Book.'' Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete these
three phrases from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes this non-
substantive change would streamline the Fee Schedule and promote
clarity.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\16\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders that provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably
constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would
provide liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
Tape B Tier 3
    Given this competitive environment, the proposed rule change
represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed
introduction of the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier is reasonable because it
provides ETP Holders affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has
a market maker account on NYSE Arca Options with an opportunity to
qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit through equity and options orders.
The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing tier utilizing a lower
equity adding volume requirement coupled with a minimum options volume
requirement is reasonable because the proposal provides firms with
greater flexibility to reach volume tiers across asset classes, thereby
creating an added incentive for ETP Holders affiliated with an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm that has a market maker account on NYSE Arca Options
to bring additional order flow to a public exchange, consequently
encouraging greater participation and liquidity.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. They also
provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to
the value of the Exchange's market quality and associated higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange operates in
a highly competitive market. The Exchange is one of many venues and
off-exchange venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
Competing exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of
the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based
on members achieving certain volume thresholds across asset classes.
Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed pricing tier is a
reasonable means to encourage ETP Holders affiliated with an OTP Holder
or OTP Firm that has a market maker account on NYSE Arca Options to
increase their liquidity on the Exchange and their participation on
NYSE Arca Options. The Exchange believes adopting the proposed pricing
tier may encourage those ETP Holders who could not previously achieve
the requirements to qualify for Tape B credits to increase their order
flow on both the Exchange and on NYSE Arca Options. Increased liquidity
benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost
savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
Non-Substantive Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to delete the
phrases ``to the Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book''
from the Fee Schedule is reasonable because each of the phrases are
superfluous and extraneous. As noted above, ETP Holders understand that
when they provide liquidity, they provide it ``to the Book,'' when they
take liquidity, they take it ``from the Book,'' and when their orders
are routed, they are routed ``outside the Book.'' The Exchange believes
it is reasonable to delete these phrases in an effort to streamline the
Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes deleting these phrases would also
promote clarity to the Fee Schedule and simplify the Fee Schedule.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
Tape B Tier 3
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to adopt a new
pricing tier equitably allocates its fees and credits among market
participants because it is reasonably related to the value of the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher equities and options
volume.
    The proposed pricing tier would be available to ETP Holders that
are affiliated with OTP Holders or OTP Firms that have a market maker
account

on NYSE Arca Options. A number of ETP Holders have a reasonable
opportunity to satisfy the tier's criteria.\18\ The Exchange does not
know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges
or to off-exchange venues. Without having a view of an ETP Holder's
activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no
way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any
ETP Holder affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market
maker account on NYSE Arca Options to increase participation in the
Exchange's equities and options markets to qualify for the proposed
Tape B Tier 3 credit. The Exchange believes the proposed pricing tier
could provide an incentive for other ETP Holders that are affiliated
with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market maker account on NYSE
Arca Options to submit additional liquidity on the Exchange and on NYSE
Arca Options to qualify for the Tape B Tier 3 credit. To the extent
that such participants direct significant order flow to the Exchange's
equities and options markets, the Exchange believes such participants
should receive the credit proposed by the new pricing tier. To the
extent an ETP Holder participates on the Exchange but not on NYSE Arca
Options, the Exchange believes that the proposal is still reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory with respect to such ETP
Holder based on the overall benefit to the Exchange resulting from the
success of NYSE Arca Options. In particular, such success would allow
the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand its existing
incentive programs to the benefit of all participants on the Exchange,
whether they participate on NYSE Arca Options or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposal is intended to incentivize ETP Holders that are
affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market maker
account on NYSE Arca Options, ETP Holders that do not meet the criteria
for the proposed tier can still qualify for credits available under the
other Tape B pricing tiers which do not require it to have any
affiliation with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm and conduct options trading
on NYSE Arca Options.
Non-Substantive Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to delete the
phrases ``to the Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book''
from the Fee Schedule is equitable because the resulting streamlined
Fee Schedule would continue to apply to ETP Holders as it does
currently because the Exchange is not adopting any new fees or credits
or removing any current fees or credits from the Fee Schedule. All ETP
Holders would continue to be subject to the same fees and credits that
currently apply to them.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
Tape B Tier 3
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to adopt
the Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier as it would be available on an equal
basis to ETP Holders that are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm
that has a market maker account on NYSE Arca Options that meet the
requirement of the proposed Tape B Tier 3 pricing tier. Further, the
Exchange believes the proposed pricing tier would incentivize such ETP
Holders to send their options orders to the Exchange to qualify for the
proposed new credit. The Exchange believes that, to the extent that ETP
Holders affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market
maker account on NYSE Arca Options, direct significant order flow to
the Exchange's equities and options markets, such participants should
receive the credit proposed by the new pricing tier. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume.
    The proposed rule change is intended to incentivize ETP Holders
that are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market
maker account on NYSE Arca Options. As such, it does not permit unfair
discrimination because the requirement to qualify for the new pricing
tier would be applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders, who would
all be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis.
Non-Substantive Change
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to delete the
phrases ``to the Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book''
from the Fee Schedule is not unfairly discriminatory because the
resulting streamlined Fee Schedule would continue to apply to ETP
Holders as it does currently because the Exchange is not adopting any
new fees or credits or removing any current fees or credits from the
Fee Schedule. All ETP Holders would continue to be subject to the same
fees and credits that currently apply to them.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \20\ See Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to attract
additional equities and options order flow to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed introduction of the Tape B Tier 3
pricing tier would incentivize market participants to direct providing
order flow to the Exchange and greater participation on NYSE Arca
Options. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the
Exchange by providing more trading opportunities and encourages ETP
Holders affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that has a market
maker account on NYSE Arca Options to send orders to the Exchange,
thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all
market participants. The proposed volume requirement would be
applicable to all similarly-situated market participants, and, as such,
the

proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange
believes the proposed new pricing tier would not impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change places a burden on competition among
participants that are not affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm
with a market maker account on NYSE Arca Options because such
participants can avail themselves to credits available under other Tape
B pricing tiers that do not require participation on NYSE Arca Options.
Additionally, the Exchange's proposal to delete the phrases ``to the
Book,'' ``from the Book,'' and ``outside the Book'' from the Fee
Schedule will not place any undue burden on intramarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because the proposed change does not impact any fees charged or
credits provided by the Exchange. All ETP Holders would continue to be
subject to the same fees and credits that currently apply to them.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) is currently less than 10%. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can
impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2021-12 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-NYSEARCA-2021-12 This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2021-12 and should be submitted
on or before March 16, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03547 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P