[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75157-75161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30386]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76520; File No. SR-BX-2015-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Fees and Rebates Related to BX Price Improvement Auction (PRISM)

November 24, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 12, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV,
Section 2, entitled ``BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates,'' which
governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (``BX
Options''). The Exchange proposes to adopt new subsection (5) to add
fees and rebates for BX Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM''), which is
a mechanism for price improvement on BX Options (``Price Improvement
Mechanism'').
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on November
16, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to adopt
new subsection (5) to add fees and rebates for PRISM.
    Effective on or about November 16, 2015, BX Options is introducing
PRISM, which is codified in BX Chapter VI, Section 9 (also known as the
``PRISM Rule'').\3\ PRISM is a Price Improvement Mechanism for all-
electronic BX Options whereby a buy and sell order may be submitted in
one order message to initiate an auction at a `stop price' and seek
potential price improvement. Options are traded electronically on BX
Options, and all options participants may respond to a PRISM
Auction,\4\ the duration of which will be set at 200 milliseconds.\5\
PRISM includes auto-match functionality in which a Participant (an
``Initiating Participant'') may electronically submit for execution an
order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer,\6\
Professional customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``PRISM
Order'') against principal interest or against any other order it
represents as agent (an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the
PRISM Order for electronic execution into the PRISM Auction pursuant to
Chapter VI, Section 9.\7\ The PRISM Rule describes the circumstances
under which an Initiating Participant may initiate an Auction. A PRISM
Order that is for a Non-Customer (account of a broker-dealer or any
other person or entity that is not a Public Customer) is always
required to improve the same side of the BX BBO even if there is no
resting limit order on the book. PRISM Orders that do not comply with
the

requirements set forth in the PRISM Rule are not eligible to initiate
an Auction and will be immediately cancelled. Also, PRISM Orders
submitted at or before the opening of trading are not eligible to
initiate an Auction and will be rejected. PRISM Orders submitted during
the final two seconds of the trading session in the affected series are
not eligible to initiate an Auction and will be immediately cancelled.
Finally, an Initiating Order may not be a solicited order for the
account of any BX Options Market Maker assigned in the affected
series.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76301 (October 29,
2015), 80 FR 68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (approval
order) (``PRISM Approval''); and 75827 (September 3, 2015), 80 FR
54601 (September 10, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (``PRISM Filing''). In
the PRISM Approval the Exchange noted that it will file a rule
change separately with the Commission to remove Price Improving and
Post-Only Order types from its Rules. The Exchange will not commence
offering BX PRISM until such time as it has an effective and
operative rule in place from the Commission to remove Price
Improving and Post-Only Orders and removes the ability to submit
Price Improving and Post-Only Orders into the auction. In the event
the Exchange determines to amend its order types to allow the entry
of non-displayed order types, e.g. Price Improving or Post-Only
Orders, the Exchange will file a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) with the Commission to seek approval for such rule
change. See also Options Technical Update #2015-6.
    \4\ PRISM Auction eligibility requirements and the early
conclusion of the PRISM Auction are, with certain other PRISM
features, subject to a pilot program scheduled to expire July 18,
2016. See BX Chapter VI, Section 9.
    \5\ Other exchanges that have price improvement auctions have
developed different durations. See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(C)
(CBOE's AIM auction has a duration of one second); and BOX Rule
7150(f)(1) (BOX's PIP auction has a duration of one hundred
milliseconds, commencing on the dissemination of the PIP broadcast).
    \6\ For purposes of the PRISM Rule in Chapter XV, Section 2, a
Public Customer order does not include a Professional order, and
therefore a Professional would not be entitled to Public Customer
priority as described herein. A Public Customer means a person that
is not a broker or dealer in securities. See BX Options Rules at
Chapter I, Section 1(a)(50). A Public Customer order does not
include a Professional order for purposes of BX Rule at Chapter VI,
Section 10(a)(C)(1)(a), which governs allocation priority. A
``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker
or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s). A Participant or a Public Customer may,
without limitation, be a Professional. All Professional orders shall
be appropriately marked by Participants. See BX Rules at Chapter I,
Section 1(a)(49).
    \7\ BX PRISM will only conduct an auction for simple (non-
complex) Orders.
    \8\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(i)(C) through (G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the PRISM Auction will be beneficial to
market participants, and in particular will encourage BX Market
Makers\9\ to quote at the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') with
additional size and thereby result in tighter and deeper markets,
resulting in more liquidity on BX. Specifically, by offering BX Market
Makers the ability to receive priority in the proposed allocation
during the PRISM Auction up to the size of their quote, a BX Market
Maker will be encouraged to quote with additional size outside of the
PRISM Auction at the best and most aggressive prices. BX believes that
this incentive may result in a narrowing of quotes and thus further
enhance BX's market quality. BX believes that PRISM will encourage BX
Market Makers to compete vigorously to provide the opportunity for
price improvement in a competitive auction process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BX Options Market Makers may also be referred to as ``Market
Makers''. The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' means a Participant
that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good standing
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive Market Maker
pricing in all securities, the Participant must be registered as a
BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
    \10\ For purposes of brevity, the Exchange does not endeavor to
describe all the nuances of PRISM within this fee proposal.
Additional detail regarding PRISM can be found in PRISM Approval,
PRISM Filing, and PRISM FAQs at http://nasdaqtrader.com/content/productsservices/trading/PRISMFAQs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal establishes the fee and rebate structure for PRISM
(per contract), in particular two new fees and one new rebate. These
would apply to Customers,\11\ BX Options Market Makers,\12\ and Non-
Customers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Customer'' means a Public Customer or a broker-
dealer. BX Chapter 1, Section 1(a)(22). The term ``Broker-Dealer''
applies to any transaction which is not subject to any of the other
transaction fees applicable within a particular category.
    \12\ BX Options Market Makers may also be referred to as
``Market Makers''. The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'')
means a Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX
Options pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in
good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to
receive Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must
be registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Change 1. The Exchange proposes to establish fees for Submitted
PRISM Order\13\ (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This relates to a market participant submitting an order
into the PRISM auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Change 2. The Exchange proposes to establish fees for Responded to
PRISM Auction \14\ (Penny Classes \15\ and non-Penny Classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This relates to a market participant responding to a PRISM
Auction.
    \15\ Penny Classes are options listed pursuant to the Penny
Pilot, which was established in June 2012 and extended in 2015. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR
39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (order approving BX option
rules and establishing Penny Pilot); and 75326 (June 29, 2015), 80
FR 38481 (July 6, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-037) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through June 30,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Change 3. The Exchange proposes to establish rebates for PRISM
Order Traded With PRISM Response.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This relates to a market participant submitting a PRISM
Order pursuant to a PRISM Auction and the PRISM Order trading with
PRISM Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each specific change is described in detail below.

Change 1--Fees for Submitted PRISM Order: Agency Order and Contra-Side
Order

    For Submitted PRISM Order the Exchange is proposing to establish
fees for Agency Order (per contract), and fees for Contra-Side Order
(per contract). Currently, the Exchange has no such fees.
    The fees for Submitted PRISM Order will range from $0.00 to $0.30
for Agency Order. The fees for Submitted PRISM Order will range from
$0.00 to $0.05 for Contra-Side Order. Specifically, for Submitted PRISM
Order proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will state that for
Customer there will be no fee ($0.00) for Agency Order and no fee
($0.00) for Contra-Side Order. Subsection (5) will state that for BX
Options Market Maker there will be a $0.30 fee for Agency Order and a
$0.05 fee for Contra-Side Order. Subsection (5) will state that for
Non-Customer there will be a $0.30 fee for Agency Order and a $0.05 fee
for Contra-Side Order.

Change 2--Fees for Responded to PRISM Auction: Penny Classes and Non-
Penny Classes

    For Responded to PRISM Auction the Exchange is proposing to
establish fees for Penny Classes (per contract), and fees for non-Penny
Classes (per contract). Currently, the Exchange has no such fees.
    The fees for Responded to PRISM Auction will be $0.49 (per executed
contract) for Penny Classes. The fees for Responded to PRISM Auction
will be $0.94 (per executed contract) for non-Penny Classes.
Specifically, for Responded to PRISM Auction proposed Chapter XV,
Section 2 subsection (5) will state that for Customer there will be a
$0.49 fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes.
Subsection (5) will state that for BX Options Market Maker there will
be a $0.49 fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes.
Subsection (5) will state that for Non-Customer there will be a $0.49
fee for Penny Classes and a $0.94 fee for non-Penny Classes.

Change 3--Rebates for PRISM Order Traded With PRISM Response: Penny
Classes and Non-Penny Classes

    For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response the Exchange is
proposing to establish rebates for Penny Classes (per contract), and
rebates for non-Penny Classes (per contract). Currently, the Exchange
has no such rebates. These rebates would be applied in conjunction with
the Agency Order fees that the Submitted PRISM Order is assessed.
    The rebates for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response will range
from $0.00 to $0.35 for Penny Classes. The rebates for PRISM Order
Traded with PRISM Response will range from $0.00 to $0.70 for non-Penny
Classes. Only Customers will get rebates. Specifically, for PRISM Order
Traded with PRISM Response proposed Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection
(5) will state that for Customer there will be a $0.35 rebate for Penny
Classes and a $0.70 rebate for non-Penny Classes. Subsection (5) will
state that for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer there will
be no rebate ($0.00) for Penny Classes and no rebate ($0.00) for non-
Penny Classes.

Example 1

    A Customer PRISM Agency Order in a Penny Class (one contract)
trades against a PRISM Response in a Penny Class (one contract). The
Customer Agency Order is assessed a fee of $0.00 and given a rebate
of $0.35 for a total rebate of $0.35 (fee $0.00 + rebate $0.35). The
market participant that Responded to PRISM Auction will be assessed
a fee of $0.49.

Example 2

    A Non-Customer PRISM Agency Order in a Penny Class (one
contract) trades against a PRISM Response in a Penny Class (one
contract). The Non-Customer Agency Order is assessed a fee of $0.30
and given a rebate of $0.00 for a total fee of $0.30 (fee $0.30 +

rebate $0.00). The market participant that Responded to PRISM
Auction will be assessed a fee of $0.49.
    As proposed, Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (5) will read as
follows:
(5) Fees and rebates for BX Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM'')

                                                             Fees and Rebates (per Contact)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Submitted  PRISM order fee      Responded to  PRISM auction   PRISM order traded with  PRISM
                                                         --------------------------------               fee                       response rebate
              Type of market  participants                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Agency  order    Contra-side                      Non-penny                       Non-penny
                                                                               order      Penny  classes      classes     Penny  classes      classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer................................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.49           $0.94           $0.35           $0.70
BX Options Market Maker.................................            0.30            0.05            0.49            0.94            0.00            0.00
Non-Customer............................................            0.30            0.05            0.49            0.94            0.00            0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BX will apply the rebate to market participants that submitted a PRISM Order pursuant to a PRISM Auction and the PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response.
  The Agency Order fee for Submitted PRISM Order will be applicable to any contract(s) for which a rebate is provided for PRISM Order Traded with PRISM
  Response.

    The Exchange is adopting these fees and rebates at this time
because it believes that they will allow the Exchange to recoup some of
the costs associated with PRISM, which promotes price improvement to
the benefit of market participants, while also incentivizing the use of
PRISM.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\17\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, for example, the Commission indicated that market forces should
generally determine the price of non-core market data because national
market system regulation ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \19\ Likewise, in NetCoalition v.
NYSE Arca, Inc., 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the DC Circuit upheld
the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the
fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress
mandated a cost-based approach.\20\ As the court emphasized, the
Commission ``intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather
than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market
data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-51808 (June 9, 2005)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \20\ See NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 534.
    \21\ Id., at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .'' \22\ Although the Court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that, as discussed above, these views apply with equal force
to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NetCoalition I, 615 F.3d at 539 (quoting ArcaBook Order, 73
FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal establishes fees and rebates regarding
PRISM, which promotes price improvement to the benefit of market
participants. The Exchange believes that PRISM will encourage market
participants, and in particular BX Market Makers, to compete vigorously
to provide the opportunity for price improvement in a competitive
auction process. The Exchange believes that its proposal will allow the
Exchange to recoup costs associated with PRISM while also incentivizing
its use.

Change 1--Fees for Submitted PRISM Order: Agency Order and Contra-Side
Order

    For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing that there will be no fee
for Customer for Agency Order, while establishing a $0.30 fee per
contract for BX Options Market Maker for Agency Order and a $0.30 fee
per contract for Non-Customer for Agency Order, is reasonable because
it encourages the desired Customer behavior. The fee is also reasonable
because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and
enhance its services. For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing no
Customer fee, while establishing a $0.05 fee per contract for BX
Options Market Maker for Contra-Side Order and a $0.05 fee per contract
fee for Non-Customer for Contra-Side Order, is reasonable because it
encourages the desired Customer behavior. The fee is also reasonable
because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and
enhance its services. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    For Submitted PRISM Order, establishing no fee for Customer (Agency
Order and Contra-Side Order) and a fee for BX Market Maker and Non-
Customer (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order) is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to
assess such fee will apply the same to all similarly situated
participants.

Change 2--Fees for Responded to PRISM Auction: Penny Classes and Non-
Penny Classes

    For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing that there will be a
$0.49 fee per contract for Customer for Agency Order, and the same fee
for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer for Agency Order, is
reasonable because the

associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and enhance its
services.
    For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing that there will be a
$0.94 fee per contract for Customer for Contra-Side Order, and the same
fee for BX Options Market Maker and for Non-Customer for Contra-Side
Order, is reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the
Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.
    For Responded to PRISM Auction, establishing a fee for Customer, BX
Market Maker and Non-Customer (Agency Order and Contra-Side Order) is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the
Exchange's proposal to assess such fee will apply the same to all
similarly situated participants.

Change 3--Rebates for PRISM Order Traded With PRISM Response: Penny
Classes and Non-Penny Classes

    For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response, establishing that there
will be no rebate for BX Options Market Maker and Non-Customer for
Penny Classes, while establishing a $0.35 rebate per contract for
Customer for Penny Classes and a $0.70 rebate per contract for Customer
for non-Penny Pilot Classes, is reasonable because it encourages the
desired Customer behavior. The rebate is also reasonable because paying
the rebate only to Customers will allow the Exchange to maintain and
enhance its services. For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response,
establishing that there will be no rebate for BX Options Market Maker
and Non-Customer for non-Penny Classes, while establishing a $0.70
rebate per contract for Customer for non-Penny, is reasonable because
it encourages the desired Customer behavior. The rebate is also
reasonable because paying the rebate only to Customers will allow the
Exchange to maintain and enhance its services.\23\ Customer activity
enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants and benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts market makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As noted, such rebate would be applied in conjunction with
any Agency Order fee that the Submitted PRISM Order is assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PRISM Order Traded with PRISM Response, establishing a rebate
for Customer (Penny Classes and non-Penny Classes) and no rebate for BX
Market Maker and Non-Customer (Penny Classes and non-Penny Classes) is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the
Exchange's proposal to pay such rebate will apply the same to all
similarly situated participants. The Exchange is adopting the proposed
fees and rebates at this time because it believes that the associated
revenue will allow it to continue and enhance PRISM, which is
beneficial to market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to establish fees and rebates for PRISM
will impose any burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the
Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is
simply establishing rebates and fees in order to remain competitive in
the current environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and
credits available to member firms in respect of PRISM do not impose a
burden on competition because the Exchange's execution and routing
services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition
both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. If the changes
proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely
that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the
changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they
continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain PRISM, which has
the potential to result in more efficient, price improved executions to
the benefit of market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\24\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-071 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-071. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-071 and
should be submitted on or before December 22, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-30386 Filed 11-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26866-26867]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)
has requested a five-year exemption for one of its employees from the
Federal requirement to hold a U.S. commercial driver's license (CDL).
Mr. Sebastian Boehm, a project engineer, holds a valid German
commercial license and wants to test drive Daimler vehicles on U.S.
roads to better understand product requirements in ``real world''
environments, and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for
a German commercial license ensure that operation under the exemption
will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the
level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0032 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2012-0032'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an

opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
    Section 5206(a)(3) of the ``Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act,'' (FAST Act) amended 49 U.S.C 31315 by adding a new paragraph
(b)(2) to permit exemptions for no longer than five years from their
dates of inception, instead of the previous two years. This statutory
provision will be codified in 49 CFR part 381 in a forthcoming
rulemaking.

III. Request for Exemption

    On behalf of Sebastian Boehm, Daimler has applied for a 5-year
exemption from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements
for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. Mr.
Boehm is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the States due to his lack of
residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in Docket
No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Boehm to operate CMVs in interstate
or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet
future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote
technological advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions
reductions. Mr. Boehm needs to drive Daimler vehicles on public roads
to better understand ``real world'' environments in the U.S. market.
According to Daimler, Mr. Boehm will typically drive for no more than 6
hours per day, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-
lane state highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways.
The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for one to
two weeks on a quarterly basis. He will in all cases be accompanied by
a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes to be traveled.
    Mr. Boehm would be required to comply with all applicable Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399) except the CDL
provisions described in this notice.
    Mr. Boehm holds a valid German commercial license, and as explained
by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for that license
ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this
driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Mr. Boehm is
familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide.
    FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a
German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the
requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability
to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler
drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014
(79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR
60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR
79410)].

    Issued on: April 27, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-10415 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17512-17515]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0182; Product Identifier 2020-NM-072-AD; Amendment
39-21474; AD 2021-06-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series and A330-300 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses in the
courier area oxygen system (CAOS). This AD requires repetitive detailed
inspections of the CAOS and replacement of affected parts if necessary.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 20, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 20,
2021.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by May 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Elbe
Flugzeugwerke GmbH Customer Support, Grenzstra[szlig]e 1 01109,
Dresden, Germany; phone: +49 351 8839 2749; fax: +49 351 8839 2125;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://www.elbeflugzeugwerke.com/en/. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0182.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0182; 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, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations office is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2019-0215, dated September 4, 2019 (referred to after this as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-201,
A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303,
A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342 and A330-343
airplanes. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0182.
    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses in the
CAOS. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracked CAOS hoses. This
condition, if not addressed, could lead to oxygen leakage in the
flexible hoses of the CAOS, which, in combination with in-flight
depressurization or smoke evacuation procedure, could result in injury
to occupants of the courier area. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH (EFW) has issued Service Bulletin EFW-SB-
35-0001, dated March 8, 2019; and Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0002,
dated September 2, 2019. This service information describes procedures
for repetitive detailed inspections (including functional tests) of the
CAOS to detect any leakage or damage (cracking) in the 32209-series
oxygen distribution hoses installed in the courier area and in lavatory
A, and replacement.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0182; Product Identifier 2020-
NM-072-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Darren
Gassetto, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative
Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,700.              $0           $1,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595....         $13,485          $14,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this 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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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:

2021-06-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21474; Docket No. FAA-2021-0182;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-072-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 20,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category,
converted to freighter airplanes in accordance with FAA supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST04038NY and STC ST04045NY.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked flexible hoses in the
courier area oxygen system (CAOS). The FAA is issuing this AD to
address cracked CAOS hoses. This condition, if not addressed, could
lead to oxygen leakage in the flexible hoses of the CAOS, which, in
combination with in-flight depressurization or smoke evacuation
procedure, could result in injury to occupants of the courier area.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    The definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD apply.
    (1) An affected part is a 32209-series oxygen flexible hose used
in the CAOS, having a part number specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05AP21.000

    (2) A serviceable part is an affected part that is new (never
previously installed), or that, before further flight after
installation into the CAOS, has passed an inspection and functional
test (no leakage or damage found) as specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD.

(h) Required Actions

    Within 1,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight hours: Do a
detailed inspection (including functional testing) for leakage or
damage of the CAOS and lavatory A oxygen system in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service
Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0001, dated March 8, 2019; or Elbe Flugzeugwerke
GmbH Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0002, dated September 2, 2019; as
applicable.

(i) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD,
any leakage or damage (i.e., cracking) is found, replace the
affected part before further flight, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service
Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0001, dated March 8, 2019; or Elbe Flugzeugwerke
GmbH Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0002, dated September 2, 2019; as
applicable.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an affected
part, as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, on any airplane is
allowed, provided it is a serviceable part, as defined in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD.

(k) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-
0001, dated March 8, 2019; and Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service
Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0002, dated September 2, 2019; specify to submit
certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include
that requirement.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2019-0215, dated September 4, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0182.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0001,
dated March 8, 2019.
    (ii) Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH Service Bulletin EFW-SB-35-0002,
dated September 2, 2019.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Elbe
Flugzeugwerke GmbH Customer Support, Grenzstra[szlig]e 1 01109,
Dresden, Germany; phone: +49 351 8839 2749; fax: +49 351 8839 2125;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://www.elbeflugzeugwerke.com/en/.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 10, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-06911 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53272-53275]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21020]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0673; FRL-9900-49-Region5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment of
the 1997 Annual Standard and the 2006 24-Hour Standard for Fine
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the state of
Michigan's request to redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment
area (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and
Wayne Counties) to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). On July 5, 2011, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted a request for EPA
to redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor Michigan nonattainment area. EPA
determined that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has attained the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and proposed on July 2,
2013, to approve Michigan's request to redesignate the area. EPA is
taking final action today on that proposal. EPA also is taking final
action in this rulemaking on several related proposals. EPA is
approving, as a revision to the Michigan state implementation plan
(SIP), the state's plan for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 2023. Finally, EPA
finds adequate and is approving Michigan's nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for 2023 for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. EPA, therefore, grants
Michigan's request to redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor area to
attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0673. All documents in these dockets
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon at
(312) 353-8290 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Persoon, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What actions is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA's response to comments?
IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On July 5, 2011, MDEQ submitted its request to redesignate the
Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the
state's SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. On
July 2, 2013, (78 FR 39654), EPA proposed approval of Michigan's
redesignation request and plan for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of
Michigan's MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for 2023 for
the area. Additional background for today's action is set forth in
EPA's July 2, 2013, proposed rulemaking.

II. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA has determined that the entire Detroit-Ann Arbor area is
attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards
(78 FR 39654) and that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Thus, EPA is approving the requests from the state of Michigan to
change the legal designation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also taking several additional actions
related to Michigan's PM2.5 redesignation requests, as
discussed below.
    EPA is approving Michigan's PM2.5 maintenance plan for
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as a revision to the Michigan SIP (such
approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment
status). The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area in attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS through 2023.
    EPA also finds adequate and is approving Michigan's 2023 primary
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area. These MVEBs will be

used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area.

III. What is EPA's response to comments?

    EPA received two sets of supportive comments on its proposed
rulemaking which have been added to the docket.

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has attained the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has also
determined that all other criteria have been met for the redesignation
of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from nonattainment to attainment of the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and for approval of
Michigan's maintenance plan for the area. See CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)
and 175A. The detailed rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set
forth in the proposed rulemaking of July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39654).

V. Final Action

    EPA is determining that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has attained the
standards and that the area meets the requirements for redesignation to
attainment of that standard under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the
CAA. Thus, EPA is granting the request from Michigan to change the
legal designation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is also approving Michigan's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area as a
revision to the SIP because the plan meets the requirements of section
175A of the CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is approving
Michigan's 2023 primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. These MVEBs will be used in future
transportation conformity analyses for the area after the effective
date for the adequacy finding and approval.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days
after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves Michigan of various requirements
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause
under 5 U.S. C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the
date of publication of this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the Commonwealth, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding new
entries for ``1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan'' and
``2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA Approval date          Comments
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance    Detroit-Ann Arbor        7/05/2011  8/29/2013 [INSERT   .......................
 Plan.                            area (Livingston,                   CITATION OF
                                  Macomb, Monroe,                     PUBLICATION].
                                  Oakland, St.
                                  Clair, Washtenaw,
                                  and Wayne
                                  Counties).
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance   Detroit-Ann Arbor        7/05/2011  8/29/2013 [INSERT   .......................
 Plan.                            area (Livingston,                   CITATION OF
                                  Macomb, Monroe,                     PUBLICATION].
                                  Oakland, St.
                                  Clair, Washtenaw,
                                  and Wayne
                                  Counties).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1173 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1173  Control strategy: Particulates.

* * * * *
    (j) Approval--The 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plans
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area (Livingston, Macomb,
Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties), has been
approved as submitted on July 5, 2011. The maintenance plan establishes
2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area of
4,360 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 119,194 tpy for
NOX.
    (k) Approval--The 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 maintenance plans
for the Detroit-Ann Arbor nonattainment area (Livingston, Macomb,
Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties), has been
approved as submitted on July 5, 2011. The maintenance plan establishes
2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area of
16 tpd for primary PM2.5 and 365 tpd for NOX.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Section 81.323 is amended by revising the entry for Detroit-Ann
Arbor, MI in the tables entitled ``Michigan--PM2.5 (Annual
NAAQS)'' and ``Michigan--PM2.5 (24-Hour NAAQS)'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.323  Michigan.

* * * * *

                     Michigan--PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\
         Designated area         ---------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI:                 8/29/2013  Attainment.
 Livingston County, Macomb
 County, Monroe County, Oakland
 County, St. Clair County,
 Washtenaw County, Wayne County.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

                                         Michigan--PM2.5 (24-Hour NAAQS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Designation for the 1997 NAAQS \a\     Designation for the 2006 NAAQS \a\
         Designated area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date \1\             Type            Date \2\               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI: Livingston  ..............  Unclassifiable/           8/29/2013  Attainment.
 County, Macomb County, Monroe                      Attainment.
 County, Oakland County, St.
 Clair County, Washtenaw County,
 Wayne County.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-21020 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63390-63391]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25346]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68032; File No. SR-ISE-2012-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Regarding Route Out Fees for Priority Customers

October 10, 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 October 1, 2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to adopt a fee related to the execution of
Priority Customer orders subject to linkage handling. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a fee related
to the execution of Priority Customer \3\ orders subject to linkage
handling (``Linkage Fee'') in symbols that are not currently subject to
a Linkage Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 100(37A), a Priority Customer is a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2009, the Exchange implemented the new Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Distributive Linkage'')
and the use of Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs''). Consistent with
Distributive Linkage and pursuant to ISE rules, the Exchange's Primary
Market Makers (``PMMs'') have an obligation to address customer \4\
orders when there is a better market displayed on another exchange.
ISE's PMMs meet this obligation via the use of ISOs. In meeting their
obligations, PMMs may incur fees when they send ISOs, especially when
sending ISOs to exchanges that charge ``taker'' fees. To minimize the
PMM's financial burden and help offset such fees, the ISE adopted a
rebate for the PMM of $0.20 per contract on all ISO orders sent to an
away exchange (regardless of the fee charged by the exchange where the
ISO order sent away was executed).\5\ The rebate for PMMs for Priority
Customer orders in the Select Symbols is equal to the fee charged by
the away exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 1900(f) of the Distributive Linkage
rules, a customer is an individual or organization that is not a
broker-dealer.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 60791 (October
5, 2009), 74 FR 52521 (October 13, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-74).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 66746 (April 5,
2012), 77 FR 21833 (April 11, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the costs associated with servicing Priority Customer orders
that must be executed at another exchange coupled with the cost of
funding the existing fee credit, the Exchange recently adopted a
Linkage Fee for executions that result from the PMM routing ISOs to
another exchange in a limited number of symbols.\7\ The Linkage Fee is
currently $0.35 per contract \8\ and is only charged for Priority
Customer orders that are routed to an away exchange in symbols that are
subject to the Exchange's modified maker/taker pricing model. These
symbols, which currently number 93, are identified on the Exchange's
Schedule of Fees as Select Symbols. Priority Customer orders that are
routed out to another exchange are charged the Linkage Fee at the
current rate instead of the standard taker fee applicable to the Select
Symbols. The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the
current Linkage Fee to Priority Customer orders that are routed to an
away exchange in all symbols traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 66589 (March 14,
2012), 77 FR 16311 (March 20, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-13).
    \8\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 66746 (April 5,
2012), 77 FR 21833 (April 11, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Linkage Fee allows the Exchange to equitably assess reasonable
fees incurred for processing such orders, and permits the Exchange to
recoup administrative and other costs. However, because the fees
assessed by other exchanges vary considerably, the Exchange has
determined to simply rebate to PMMs the actual transaction fee assessed
by the exchange to which the order is routed, while requiring the PMM
to make every effort, all things being equal, to route the order to the
lowest cost away market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ISE Schedule of Fees, Section E. PMM Linkage Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it currently has a similar fee and credit
for Professional Customer orders. Specifically, the Exchange currently
charges Professional Customers a fee of $0.45 per contract for
executions of orders that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with Distributive Linkage, and also provides PMMs with a
credit equal to the fee charged by the destination exchange for such
Professional Customer orders, but not more than $0.45 per contract.\10\
This routing fee and credit applies to all the symbols that are traded
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61855 (April 6,
2010), 75 FR 19441 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) \11\ of the Exchange Act that an exchange have an equitable
allocation of

reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities. In particular, the Exchange believes
charging a route-out fee for Priority Customer orders is reasonable if
doing so provides the Exchange the ability to recover the costs of
funding a credit the Exchange provides to its PMMs, who, in the course
of meeting their obligation, are incurring a financial burden. The
Exchange further believes it is equitable and reasonable to assess the
proposed fee to recoup costs associated with routing Priority Customer
orders to away markets. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees
would be uniformly applied to all Priority Customer orders. ISE notes
that a number of other exchanges currently charge a variety of routing
related fees associated with customer and non-customer orders that are
subject to linkage handling. The Exchange further notes that the fees
proposed herein are substantially lower than the level of fees charged
by some of the Exchange's competitors.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX Fee Schedule, Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\ 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 to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2012-83 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-ISE-2012-83. 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 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal offices of ISE. 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-ISE-2012-83, and should be submitted on or before
November 6, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25346 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P