[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27527-27529]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11246]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66924; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
FINRA's Trading Activity Fee Rate for Transactions in Covered Equity
Securities

May 4, 2012.
    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 2, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to amend Section 1 of Schedule A to the FINRA
By-Laws to adjust the rate of FINRA's Trading Activity Fee (``TAF'')
for transactions in covered equity securities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    FINRA's primary member regulatory pricing structure consists of the
following fees: the Personnel Assessment; the Gross Income Assessment;
and the TAF. These fees are used to fund FINRA's regulatory activities,
including examinations; financial monitoring; and FINRA's policymaking,
rulemaking, and enforcement activities.\3\ Because the proceeds from
these fees are used to fund FINRA's regulatory mandate, Section 1 of
Schedule A to FINRA's By-Laws notes that ``FINRA shall periodically
review these revenues in conjunction with costs to determine the
applicable rate.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Sec.  1(a).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA initially adopted the TAF in 2002 as a replacement for an
earlier regulatory fee based on trades reported to Nasdaq's Automated
Confirmation Transaction system then in place.\5\ Currently, the TAF is
generally assessed on the sale of all exchange registered securities
wherever executed (except debt securities that are not TRACE-Eligible
Securities), over-the-counter equity securities, security futures,
TRACE-Eligible Securities (provided that the transaction is a
Reportable TRACE Transaction), and all municipal securities subject to
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board reporting requirements. The rules
governing the TAF also include a list of transactions exempt from the
TAF.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46416 (August 23,
2002), 67 FR 55901 (August 30, 2002).
    \6\ See FINRA By-Laws, Schedule A, Sec.  1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current TAF rate for covered equity securities is $0.000095 per
share for each sale of a covered equity security, with a maximum charge
of $4.75 per trade. This rate has been in place for trades occurring on
or after March 1, 2012, and was based on estimated trading volumes.\7\
If the execution price for a covered equity security is less than the
TAF rate on a per share basis, then no TAF is assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Regulatory Notice 12-06 (January 2012); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66287 (February 1, 2012), 77 FR
6161 (February 7, 2012); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66276
(January 30, 2012), 77 FR 5613 (February 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the TAF is based on trading volumes, FINRA's revenues
derived from the TAF are subject to the volatility of trading in the
securities markets and, in particular, the equity markets. Although the
TAF is generally charged on transactions in equity securities, TRACE-
reportable securities, options, and futures, over 95% of TAF revenue is
generated by transactions in covered equity securities. Thus, FINRA's
revenue from the TAF is substantially affected by changes in trading
volume in the equities markets.
    Share volume in the equity markets has been difficult to project
given the volatility of the markets through 2011 and into the early
months of 2012. Declining share volume during December 2011 and the
first two months of 2012 indicate that share volumes are not holding to
the level seen in 2011 as FINRA anticipated. Given this trend, FINRA's
TAF projections for the year indicate a shortfall. Equity trading
volume from December 2011 through February 2012 averaged approximately
6.7 billion shares per day; when setting the previous TAF rate, FINRA
estimated average equity trading of approximately 7.7 billion shares
per day. Recognizing these volume conditions remain weaker than
anticipated, it is necessary for FINRA to adjust the TAF rate for the
second half of 2012.
    To stabilize revenue flows necessary to support FINRA's regulatory
mission in light of the decreased volume of trading in the equity
markets, FINRA is proposing an increase to the TAF rate for covered
equity securities from $0.000095 per share to $0.000119 per share, with
a corresponding increase to the per-transaction cap for covered equity
securities from $4.75 to $5.95.\8\ FINRA believes that increasing the
TAF rate on these securities by $0.000024 per share is the minimum
increase necessary to bring the revenue from the TAF to its needed
levels to adequately fund FINRA's member regulatory obligations. As
with the prior rate change to the TAF, the proposed increase to the TAF
rate on transactions in covered equity securities seeks to remain
revenue neutral to FINRA (i.e., as adjusted, FINRA would aim to receive
a substantially similar amount in revenue from the TAF as the TAF has
generated in prior years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because, as noted above, transactions in covered equity
securities account for over 95% of TAF revenues, FINRA is not
proposing adjustments to the TAF rates for other types of
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When FINRA proposed replacing the former NASD Regulatory Fee with
the TAF in 2002, several commenters at the time expressed concern to
the Commission that FINRA could raise the TAF rate at any time without
notice and comment and Commission approval.\9\ In approving the TAF,
the Commission noted that it did not share the commenters' concern,
that FINRA must file any proposed changes to the TAF with the SEC, and
that FINRA agreed to file all future changes to the TAF for full notice
and comment pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003).
    \10\ See id. at 34024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the recent amendments by Congress to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ to clarify the authority of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') to file proposed rule changes
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the SRO
for immediate effectiveness,\12\ FINRA believes it is appropriate to
file future amendments to the TAF rates under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \14\ rather than for full notice
and comment under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\15\ FINRA notes that it
will continue to file all TAF rate changes with the Commission, and

the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend a proposed rule change
changing a TAF rate filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
within 60 days of filing ``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].'' \16\ As noted above, FINRA anticipates filing proposed
changes to TAF rates (either to increase or to decrease a rate) only
when necessary to account for changes in trading volume with the goal
of making the TAF revenue-neutral for FINRA (i.e., FINRA aims to
receive a substantially similar amount in revenue from the TAF from
year to year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s-3(b)(3) [sic].
    \12\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act amended Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act to
explicitly allow SROs to file proposed rule changes for immediate
effectiveness if the proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the SRO on members or non-
members.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s-3(b)(3)(A) [sic].
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. Paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 permits a
proposed rule change filed by an SRO to take effect upon filing with
the SEC if the SRO designates the proposed rule change as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only
to a member. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). The TAF is charged only to
FINRA members.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s-3(b)(2) [sic].
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s-3(b)(3)(C) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be July 1,
2012. FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls. Because of the recent decrease in trading volumes in the
equity markets described above, FINRA believes that the proposed rate
change to the TAF is now necessary to ensure that FINRA can continue to
maintain a robust regulatory program and meet its regulatory
obligations effectively while attempting to remain revenue neutral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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-FINRA-2012-023 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-FINRA-2012-023. 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2012-023 and should be
submitted on or before May 31, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11246 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45502-45506]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72719; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE MKT
Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, Related to
Co-Location Services

July 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 23, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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 MKT Equities Price List
(``Price List'') and, through NYSE Amex Options LLC (``NYSE Amex
Options''), to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee
Schedule''), related to co-location services. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective July 28, 2014. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List and the Fee Schedule
related to co-location services. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee change effective July 28, 2014.\4\ The proposed change is intended
to, among other things, streamline the offerings available to Users in
the data center, make the Price List and Fee Schedule easier to
understand and administer, and eliminate references to services that
would be discontinued because they are no longer utilized by Users.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
initially approved the Exchange's co-location services in Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299
(September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-80) (the ``Original Co-
location Approval''). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, the
term ``User'' includes (i) member organizations, as that term is
defined in the definitions section of the General and Floor Rules of
the NYSE MKT Equities Rules, and ATP Holders, as that term is
defined in NYSE Amex Options Rule 900.2NY(5); (ii) Sponsored
Participants, as that term is defined in Rule 123B.30(a)(ii)(B)--
Equities and NYSE Amex Options Rule 900.2NY(77); and (iii) non-
member organization and non-ATP Holder broker-dealers and vendors
that request to receive co-location services directly from the
Exchange. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65974
(December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79249 (December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2011-81) and 65975 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79233 (December 21,
2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-82). As specified in the Price List and the
Fee Schedule, a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular
co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca,
Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70176 (August 13,
2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cages
    A User is able to purchase a cage to house its cabinets within the
data center. A cage would typically be purchased by a User that has
several cabinets within the data center and that wishes to arrange its
cabinets contiguously while also enhancing privacy around its cabinets.
The Exchange charges fees for cages based on the size of the cage,
which directly corresponds to the number of cabinets housed therein.\6\
The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List and Fee Schedule to
reflect that a User must have at least two cabinets in the data

center to purchase a cage. Existing pricing for cages would not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67664 (August 15,
2012), 77 FR 50733 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-10); and 67665
(August 15, 2012), 77 FR 50734 (August 22, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-
11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LCN CSP Access
    The Exchange's ``Liquidity Center Network'' (``LCN'') is a local
area network that is available in the data center. A User is currently
able to act as a content service provider (a ``CSP'' User) and deliver
services to another User in the data center (a ``Subscribing''
User).\7\ These services could include, for example, order routing/
brokerage services and/or data delivery services. LCN CSP connections
allow the CSP User to send data to, and communicate with, all the
properly authorized Subscribing Users at once, via a specific,
dedicated LCN connection (an ``LCN CSP'' connection). The Price List
and Fee Schedule include related pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the one gigabit (``Gb'') LCN
CSP connection offering, which is no longer utilized by Users, and to
remove references to related pricing from the Price List and Fee
Schedule. The 10 Gb LCN CSP connection offering would remain available,
as would the related pricing in the Price List and Fee Schedule. Also,
a CSP User would remain able to deliver its services to a Subscribing
User via direct cross connect, as is currently the case and as was the
case prior to the introduction of the LCN CSP connection offering.
Bundled Network Access
    A User is currently able to select from three ``bundled''
connectivity options, at various bandwidths (i.e., one, 10 and 40 Gb),
when connecting to the data center. The Exchange proposes to
discontinue ``bundled'' connectivity options that are no longer
utilized by Users and to remove references to related pricing from the
Price List and Fee Schedule. In particular, the Exchange would
discontinue (1) ``Option 2'' completely, (2) the 10 Gb LX and 40 Gb
bandwidth ``bundles'' under ``Option 1,'' and (3) the one Gb, 10 Gb LX
and 40 Gb ``bundles'' under Option 3. Current ``Option 3'' would be
renumbered as ``Option 2.''
Initial Install Services
    When a User selects a new cabinet in the data center it is charged
the ``Initial Install Services'' fee ($800 per dedicated cabinet or
$400 for per eight-rack unit in a partial cabinet), which includes
initial racking of equipment in the cabinet, provision of a certain
number of cables (10 per dedicated cabinet or five per eight-rack unit
in a partial cabinet), and a certain number of hours of labor (four per
dedicated cabinet or two per eight-rack unit in a partial cabinet).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange explained the Initial Install Services fee when
it introduced partial cabinet offerings. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 71131 (December 18, 2013), 78 FR 77750 (December 24,
2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the Initial Install Services would no
longer limit the number of cables that are included and that references
to those limits would be removed from the Price List and Fee Schedule.
A User would therefore be provided with the number of cables required
to provision the cabinet for initial installation. The existing limit
on the number of labor hours included would remain.
Hot Hands and Related Services
    The Exchange currently offers a ``Hot Hands Service,'' which allows
Users to use on-site data center personnel to maintain User
equipment.\9\ The applicable fee in the Price List and Fee Schedule for
Hot Hands Service is $200 per hour if scheduled during normal business
hours (i.e., on non-Exchange holidays, Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.) and if scheduled at least one day in advance. A higher fee
applies if, for example, the Hot Hands Service is scheduled during
extended business hours (i.e., Monday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 9 a.m.,
Exchange holidays, and weekends, if scheduled at least one day in
advance) or if the Hot Hands Service is ``expedited'' (i.e., if not
scheduled at least one day in advance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Original Co-location Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to consolidate all the current categories of
Hot Hands Service under a single Hot Hands Service category and charge
a single rate of $100 per half hour. The proposed $100 per half hour
charge would be equivalent to the existing $200 per hour rate in the
Price List and Fee Schedule, except that it would reflect a charge for
Hot Hands Service in half hour increments. The other existing rates
that currently apply to Hot Hands Service during extended business
hours or for expedited Hot Hands Service would be discontinued.
    Several other related services described in the Price List and Fee
Schedule are available to Users, for which the same $200 per hour rate
applies as is currently applicable for the standard Hot Hands Service,
as follows: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``Rack and Stack''

     Installation of one server in a User's cabinet. This
service encompasses handling, unpacking, tagging, and installation of
the server as well as one network connection within the User's rack.

 ``Install and Document Cable''

     Labor charges to install and document the fitting of
cable(s) in a User's cabinet(s) in excess of the cables included in the
cabinet Initial Install Services fee (as described above); and

 ``Technician Support Service--Non Emergency''

     Network technician equipped to support User network
troubleshooting activity and to provide all necessary testing
instruments to support the User request. One prior day's notice is
required.
    The Exchange proposes to perform these services under the single
Hot Hands Service category proposed above, at the proposed Hot Hands
Service rate of $100 per half hour. Because of the elimination of the
limit on the number of cables included with the Initial Install
Services fee, the ``Install and Document Cable'' service that would be
subsumed into the Hot Hands Service fee would apply to additional labor
hours needed to complete an initial install above the amount of time
included in the Initial Install Services fee (i.e., greater than four
hours per dedicated cabinet or two hours per eight-rack unit in a
partial cabinet).
    Several other related services described in the Price List and Fee
Schedule are available to Users in the data center for which the
service fee is different than the current $200 per hour Hot Hands
Service fee, as follows: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``Power Recycling''--$50 per reset.

     Reboot of power on one server or switch as well as
observing and reporting on the status of the reboot back to the User.

 ``Equipment Maintenance Call Escalation''--$100 per call.

     Hardware maintenance-break fix services.

 ``Technician Support Service--Emergency''--$325 per hour.

     Network technician equipped to support User network
troubleshooting activity and to provide all necessary testing
instruments to support the User request. Two hour notice is required.
    The Exchange also proposes to perform these services under the
single Hot Hands Service category proposed above, similarly at the
proposed Hot Hands Service rate of $100 per half hour.
Obsolete Dates
    Certain services in the data center that are described in the Price
List and Fee

Schedule identify introductory dates during which discounted pricing
had been in effect. These dates have passed. The Exchange proposes to
eliminate the obsolete references to these dates. This proposed change
would have no impact on pricing.
General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, an ATP Holder, a Sponsored Participant or an
agent thereof (e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services);
(ii) use of the co-location services proposed herein would be
completely voluntary and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory
basis; \12\ and (iii) a User would only incur one charge for the
particular co-location service described herein, regardless of whether
the User connects only to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or
both of its affiliates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \13\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67, supra note 5 at 50471. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted the same proposed rule
change to propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSE-2014-37
and SR-NYSEArca-2014-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the Exchange offers the services described herein as a
convenience to Users, but in doing so incurs certain costs, including
costs related to the data center facility, hardware and equipment and
costs related to personnel required for initial installation and
ongoing monitoring, support and maintenance of such services. The
Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with the Act
because it would permit the Exchange to streamline the offerings
available to Users in the data center, make the Price List and Fee
Schedule easier to understand and administer, and eliminate references
in the Price List and Fee Schedule to services that would be
discontinued because they are no longer utilized by Users.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require that a User
have a minimum of two cabinets in the data center in order to purchase
a cage because a User with one cabinet typically would not be
interested in placing a cage around a single cabinet, due to the lack
of necessity and the added cost that the User would incur. The Exchange
also believes that this is reasonable because the existing monthly cage
fees reflect the opportunity cost to the Exchange of giving up floor
space in the data center for the cage's physical footprint and the
value of such space to the User, in that such floor space otherwise
could be utilized for additional cabinets for the same or other Users
or other Exchange purposes. Placing just a single cabinet in a cage
would not be consistent with this opportunity cost. However, existing
pricing for cages would not change, and requiring a minimum of two
cabinets also would not result in a price increase for a cage, because
the price for the cage would not increase until a User's number of
cabinets reaches the next pricing tier for cages (i.e., 15-28
cabinets).
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to discontinue the
services in the data center that are no longer utilized by Users and to
remove references to related pricing from the Price List and Fee
Schedule because the resulting Price List and Fee Schedule would be
more streamlined and easier to read, understand and administer. This
would also contribute to a more efficient process for managing the
various services offered to Users, which would improve the utilization
of the data center resources, both with respect to personnel and
infrastructure (i.e., hardware, software, etc.).
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate the limit
on the number of cables that are included in the Initial Install
Services fee because it would assist Users in meeting the growing needs
of their business operations. Some Users require fewer cables than the
current limits, while other Users require more. However, the Exchange
generally anticipates that, on average, these amounts would be
consistent with the amounts currently specified in the Price List and
Fee Schedule. The existing limits on labor hours would remain.
Therefore, a User whose cable requirements result in labor hours that
exceed the amount included in the Initial Install Services fee would be
required to utilize Hot Hands Service and pay the corresponding fee.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge a single rate
of $100 per half hour for Hot Hands Service, including for Hot Hands
Service during extended business hours and for expedited Hot Hands
Service. The proposed $100 per half hour charge would be equivalent to
the existing $200 per hour rate in the Price List and Fee Schedule,
except that it would reflect billing for Hot Hands Service in half hour
increments. This is reasonable because it would consolidate several
similar services under one category with a single applicable rate,
thereby eliminating the need for Users to identify the type of Hot
Hands Service they are requesting, the timing for the request, or for
the Exchange to monitor and record the initiation time of the
corresponding performance of the service. The Exchange believes that
charging $100 per half hour is reasonable because it would represent an
overall decrease compared to the several, current Hot Hands Service
categories (i.e., during extended business hours and for expedited Hot
Hands Service).
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to perform other
related services under the Hot Hands Service category, for which the
same $200 per hour rate currently applies for the standard Hot Hands
Service, because this would simplify the descriptions of the various
categories of services available to Users. However, despite the
proposed change, the applicable rate would remain consistent with the
current rate in the Price List and Fee Schedule (i.e., $100 per half
hour instead of $200 per full hour), as would the actual performance of
these services, because the data center personnel would be the same as
the personnel performing Hot Hands Service.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to perform various
other related services under the proposed single Hot Hands Service
category, at the proposed rate of $100 per half hour, despite different
fees currently applying

to such services. This would contribute to further simplifying the
descriptions of the various categories of services available to Users
and make the Price List and Fee Schedule easier to understand and
administer. The applicable base rate would decrease for Technician
Support Service--Emergency. The current premium that is factored into
the $325 per hour rate to account for the ``emergency'' nature of the
service request would be eliminated, which is reasonable because it
would address the needs of Users to have their requirements attended to
in the data center via the Hot Hands Service, even when time is of the
essence for resolution. In contrast, the base rate for ``Power
Recycling'' would increase from $50 per reset to $100 per half hour.
The Exchange believes that this is reasonable because several of the
other services in the data center to which Users have access would
decrease in cost as a result of this proposal (i.e., Hot Hands Service
during extended business hours and for expedited Hot Hands Service as
well as the Technician Support Service--Emergency). On balance,
therefore, rates charged to Users would decrease as a result of the
proposed change, even if a User pays a slightly higher fee for ``Power
Recycling'' under the single Hot Hands Service category. Also, while
the current rate in the Price List and Fee Schedule for ``Equipment
Maintenance Call Escalation'' is $100 per call, this service may only
take a half hour to complete, in which case the resulting fee charged
to a User may be comparable to the current base rate in the Price List
and Fee Schedule. Despite the proposed change, the actual performance
of these services would remain the same, because the data center
personnel would be the same as the personnel performing Hot Hands
Service.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate references
in the Price List and Fee Schedule to dates that have already passed
because these references are obsolete and no longer have an impact on
pricing.
    As with fees for existing co-location services, the fees proposed
herein would be charged only to those Users that voluntarily select the
related services, which would be available to all Users. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged
only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding
services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed
herein are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated
because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they
are available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same products
and services are available to all Users).
    For the reasons above, the proposed change would not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, 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 these 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,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address a
competitive issue with other exchanges that offer co-location or
related services, or competitive issues between Users of these services
in the data center, but rather to streamline the offerings available to
Users in the data center and eliminate references to services that are
no longer utilized by Users, thereby making the Price List and Fee
Schedule easier to understand and administer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its services and related fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment.

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) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).[deg]
    \18\ 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) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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-NYSEMKT-2014-61 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-NYSEMKT-2014-61. 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 20549-1090, on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying
at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site at
www.nyse.com. 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-
NYSEMKT-2014-61 and should be submitted on or before August 26, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18433 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41370-41371]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0004; Notice 2]

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2009-2015 Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-
door passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door
retention components. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc.,
filed a report dated December 16, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports for AML. AML then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Luis
Figueroa, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), AML submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 17, 2016, in the Federal Register
(81 FR 8125). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0004.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 5,516 MY 2009-
2015 Aston Martin DB9 two-door and four-door passenger cars that were
manufactured between September 1, 2009 and December 9, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: AML explains that the noncompliance occurs when
the door locking system in the subject vehicles is double-locked
causing the interior operating means for unlocking the door locking
mechanism to become disengaged and therefore does not meet the
requirements as specified in paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 206 requires:

    S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one
locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the
exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and
which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device
located within the interior of the vehicle.
    S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped
with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement
mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily
accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated
adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of
the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and
requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the
interior door handle or other interior latch release control.
    S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door
handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped
with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of
S4.3.1. . . .

    V. Summary of AML's Petition: AML described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    (a) AML stated that the subject vehicles can only be double-locked
by using the key fob (which also serves as the ignition key) and that
if the vehicle is double-locked from the inside, the driver and or
passenger will be able to disengage the double-lock by using the key
fob. AML believes that as a result, the double-locking mechanism could
not cause a situation in which a vehicle is double-locked from the
inside by the driver and a crash disables the driver, leaving the
passenger(s) locked inside.
    (b) AML stated that the risks of children being locked in the
vehicle by means of the double-locking

mechanism, does not pose an unacceptable risk to motor vehicle safety.
AML believes that compared to other motor vehicles, AML's vehicles are
rarely used to transport children. With the exception of the Rapide and
Rapide S models, all Aston Martin vehicles are two-door sports cars.
    Moreover, AML states that the double-locking mechanism in the
subject vehicles poses no greater risk to children than the child
safety locks expressly found to be permitted by FMVSS No. 206.
    (c) AML stated its belief that there is little risk that any adults
will be locked in its vehicles.
    (d) AML stated that in the event a driver were to inadvertently
lock a passenger in one of the subject vehicles, the passenger would be
able to sound the horn, which would remain functional, allowing the
passenger to alert the driver and passers-by.
    (e) AML also stated that many of the subject vehicles have motion
sensors that would detect the presence of someone in the vehicle as
soon as that person moved, and an alarm would sound, which is audible
outside the vehicle. Thus, deterring inadvertent lock-ins of both
adults and children and would alert passers-by of any passengers locked
in the subject vehicles.
    (f) AML stated its belief that if an adult were locked in a
vehicle, he or she could alert passers-by and would probably be able to
contact the driver via mobile communication devices that, in fact, are
ubiquitous today and certainly are very likely to be in the possession
of the average AML vehicle passenger.
    AML also stated that they have not received any complaints
regarding the subject noncompliance.
    AML additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected the
noncompliance in vehicles manufactured from production date December 9,
2015 and will correct the noncompliance in any unsold noncompliant
vehicles prior to sale.
    In summation, AML believes that the described noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt AML from providing notification of the noncompliances as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA does not find AML's rationale that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
persuasive. AML made several assumptions regarding the actions that
passengers could take in the event of being double-locked in the
subject vehicles (e.g., a passenger will be able to disengage the
double-lock by using the key fob; AML's vehicles are rarely used to
transport children; in the event a driver were to inadvertently lock a
passenger in one of the subject vehicles, the passenger would be able
to sound the horn to alert the driver and passers-by; many of the
subject vehicles have motion sensors that would detect the presence of
someone in the vehicle, if that person moved, and sound an alarm
alerting the driver or passers-by; someone trapped in the vehicle would
probably be able to contact the driver via mobile communication
devices, etc.), but offered no specific solution to lower the risk of
being trapped in a car, save complying with the rule, as AML has been
doing since December 2015.
    In February 2007, NHTSA provided a specific solution towards
lowering the risk of a passenger being trapped in a motor vehicle when
it published a final rule \1\ to amend FMVSS No. 206. Among the final
rule updates, Paragraphs S4.3 and S4.3.1, required a lock release/
engagement device located inside the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 72 FR 5385, February 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also reaffirmed that new requirement for a lock release/
engagement device inside the vehicle in an interpretation letter to Mr.
Thomas Betzer from Keykert, USA. In that interpretation, NHTSA
addressed whether double-locked doors (doors that can only be unlocked
using a key) would be allowed under the rule as amended in February
2007 (the current rule) in a system similar to AML's in that once the
driver would activate the anti-theft alarm with a key, the doors would
be double-locked. Specifically, NHTSA interpreted that double-lock
systems are no longer allowed because they interfere with the interior
door lock release device. The interpretation also makes it clear that
in the December 15, 2004, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the
February 6, 2007, final rule, that NHTSA sought to require interior
door locks to ``be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the
vehicle by means of a lock release device that has an operating means
and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the
vehicle.''
    NHTSA has examined certain real world situations involving
individuals trapped in motor vehicles, while infrequent, are
consequential to motor vehicle safety. Such scenarios include vehicle
fires, vehicles entering bodies of water, and individuals trapped in
hot vehicles. Vehicles with double locked doors in emergency situations
such as those examined, would have consequential effects on motor
vehicle safety.
    Based on its analysis of AML's petition, NHTSA has determined that
AML has failed to make a case that having double locked doors in a
vehicle that is involved in an emergency scenario in which the
occupants of the subject vehicles are unable to access the key fob to
open the doors and are unable to be seen or heard is inconsequential to
safety.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that AML has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 206
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
AML's petition is hereby denied and AML is obligated to provide
notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-14964 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57133]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-102-000]

Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC; Notice of Institution of
Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 6, 2021, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL21-102-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation concerning the justness
and reasonableness of Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC's Reactive
Service rate schedule. Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC, 177 FERC ]
61,012, (2021).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL21-102-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL21-102-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2020), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: October 7, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22398 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P