[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46620-46625]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75554; File No. SR-NSX-2015-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Exchange Rule 11.21, Short Sales, To Describe the Exchange's
Implementation of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO Under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Relocate Certain Text From Rule 11.11, Orders
and Modifiers; and Amending Rule 13.2 To Incorporate by Reference Rules
200, 203 and 204 of Regulation SHO

July 30, 2015.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 17, 2015,
National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been substantially 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 11.21, Short
Sales, in order to describe the manner in which the Exchange's trading
system (the ``System'') \3\ handles sell short orders under the
provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (``Rule 201'') pursuant to the
Act.\4\ The Exchange also proposes to relocate to Rule 11.21 certain
short sale-related rule text currently in Rule 11.1, Orders and
Modifiers, and to amend Rule 13.2, Failure to Deliver and Failure to
Receive, to delete the existing text and incorporate by reference Rules
200, 203 and 204 of Regulation SHO.\5\ The Exchange has designated this
rule proposal as ``non-controversial'' pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 1.5, Definitions, defines the ``System'' as
``. . . the electronic securities communications and trading
facility . . . through which orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking and execution.''
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.201. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010) (``Rule 201
Adopting Release'') and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63247
(Nov. 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (Nov. 9, 2010). See also Division of
Trading and Markets: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, January 20, 2011, at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm (``Rule 201
FAQs'').
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.200, 17 CFR 242.203 and 17 CFR 242.204.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.nsx.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Commission's public reference room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the rule changes proposed by the Exchange is to
provide transparency for Exchange Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'')
Holders,\8\ their customers, and the investing public into the
operation of the System in accordance with Rule 201.\9\ The proposed
rule amendments will: (i) Consolidate the Exchange's short sale rules
into a single rule set and make amendments that will further enhance
the transparency of the Exchange's rules; (ii) clarify the System's
operation regarding the handling of a ``resting'' sell short Market Peg
Zero Display Reserve Order under Rule 201; \10\ (iii) specify the
obligations of ETP Holders with respect to marking sell short orders
entered into the System; and (iv) amend Rule 13.2, Failure to Deliver
and Failure to Receive, to delete the existing text and incorporate by
reference Rules 200, 203 and 204 of Regulation SHO pursuant to the
Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5, the term ``ETP'' refers to
an Equity Trading Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting
approved securities transactions on the Exchange's facilities.
    \9\ Pursuant to Interpretations and Policies .01 (Cessation of
Trading Operations on NSX) under Exchange Rule 11.1 (Hours of
Trading), the Exchange ceased operating its marketplace for the
trading of equity securities as of the close of business on May 30,
2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72107 (May 6, 2014),
79 FR 27017 (May 12, 2014) (SR-NSX-2014-14). The Exchange is filing
this proposed rule change in anticipation of the resumption of
trading activity on the System, after all necessary regulatory
approvals have been obtained.
    \10\ Exchange Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A) defines a Zero Display Reserve
Order as a Reserve Order with a Zero Display Quantity and a Market
Peg Zero Display Reserve Order as a pegged Zero Display Order that
tracks the inside quote on the opposite side of the market.
    \11\ See footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 201(b)(1)(i) requires that trading centers such as the
Exchange establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display of a
short sale order of a covered security at a price that is less than or
equal to the current national best bid if the price of that covered
security decreases by 10% or more from such security's closing price on
the listing market at the close of regular trading hours on the prior
day (the ``Short Sale Price Test''). Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) requires that
trading centers establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to impose the Short Sale Price Test for
the remainder of the trading day and the following day, when a national
best bid for the security is calculated and disseminated on a current
and continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effective
national market system plan (the ``Short Sale Price Test Period'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 201(b)(1)(iii)(A) \13\ provides that a trading center's
written policies and procedures must be reasonably designed to permit
the execution of a displayed short sale order of a covered security

during the Short Sale Price Test Period if, at the time of initial
display of the short sale order, the order was at a price above the
current national best bid. Further, Rule 201(b)(1)(iii)(B) requires
that such policies and procedures must be reasonably designed to permit
the execution of a short sale order of a covered security marked
``short exempt'' during the Short Sale Price Test Period without regard
to whether the order is at a price that is less than or equal to the
current national best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments of Exchange Rule 11.21
    The Exchange states that, consistent with its obligations as a
trading center under Rule 201, it implemented, maintains and enforces
written policies and procedures and System functionality reasonably
designed to prevent the execution or display of a sell short order of a
covered security subject to the Short Sale Price Test at a price equal
to or below the current national best bid. The Exchange's written
policies and procedures and the System functionality are also
reasonably designed to: (i) Permit the execution of a displayed short
sale order in a covered security that would otherwise be subject to the
Short Sale Price Test if, at the time of initial display of the short
sale order, the order was at a price above the current national best
bid; and (ii) permit the execution or display of a short sale order in
a covered security marked ``short exempt'' without regard to whether
the order is at a price that is less than or equal to the current
national best bid.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(iii)(B). Rule 200(g)(2), 17 CFR
242.200(g), provides that a sell order may be marked ``short
exempt'' only if the provisions of Rules 201(c) or 201(d) are met.
With respect to Rule 201(d), in order to mark an order ``short
exempt'' a broker or dealer must have a reasonable basis for
believing that the order meets one of the exceptions specified in
Rule 201(d)(1) through (d)(7). With respect to Rule 201(c), in order
to mark an order ``short exempt'' the order must be entered during
the Short Sale Price Test Period and meet the conditions specified
in Rule 201(c). 17 CFR 242.201(d); 17 CFR 242.201(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.21 to add provisions
regarding the operation of the System in handling short sale orders
under Rule 201 in the event the Short Sale Price Test is triggered and
such provisions will be part of the written policies and procedures of
the Exchange. The Exchange states that it is proposing these amendments
to enhance transparency in its rules and to make explicit the
obligations of ETP Holders in ensuring that sell short orders entered
into the System are properly marked as ``short'' or ``short exempt,''
and the Exchange's expectations in that regard.
    In proposed new paragraph (a) of Rule 11.21, the Exchange defines
the terms ``covered security,'' ``national best bid,'' and ``listing
market'' for purposes of Rule 11.21 as having the same meaning as the
corresponding definitional section of Rule 201 \15\ and applies the
definitions with respect to all of the proposed changes to Rule 11.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.201(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed new paragraph (b) of Rule 11.21, the Exchange
explicitly states that ETP Holders are required to mark sell orders
entered into the System as ``long,'' ``short,'' or ``short exempt'' as
required by Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO. Additionally, the Exchange
makes clear in paragraph (b) that it relies on the marking of an order
as ``short exempt'' when it receives such an order and it is the
responsibility of the ETP Holder entering the order, and not the
Exchange's responsibility, to comply with the requirements of
Regulation SHO relating to the marking of orders as ``short exempt.''
The Exchange believes that, by explicitly stating these requirements as
part of the proposed amendments to Rule 11.21, it will enhance the
transparency and comprehensiveness of the Exchange's rules and provide
ETP Holders with a clear statement of their order marking
responsibilities with respect to sell short orders.
    In that regard, Interpretations and Policies .01 of Rule 11.21, as
proposed, explicitly states that NSX Securities, LLC (``NSXS''), an
Exchange-affiliated broker-dealer with the sole function of acting as
the outbound routing facility of the Exchange, relies on an ETP
Holder's marking of an order as ``long,'' ``short'' or ``short
exempt.'' \16\ NSXS will route an order received by NSX marked ``short
exempt'' during the Short Sale Price Test Period without independently
evaluating the correctness of the ``short exempt'' marking under
Regulation SHO Rules 201(c) and (d).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Under Rule 2.11, NSXS functions solely as the Exchange's
outbound routing facility. NSXS is not an execution venue.
    \17\ See Reg. SHO FAQs, Question and Answer 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed new paragraph (c) of Rule 11.21, the Exchange states
that, except as provided in subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the rule
(which, as discussed below, pertain to the two exceptions permitting
execution and display of sell short orders of a covered security during
the Short Sale Price Test Period), the System will not execute,
display, or route a sell short order in a covered security at a price
that is less than or equal to the current national best bid if the
price of that security decreases by 10 percent or more from the
security's closing price as determined by the listing market for the
covered security as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior
day. Proposed new subparagraph (c)(1) states that the System will
execute and display a short sale order during the Short Sale Price Test
Period without regard to price if, at the time of initial display of
the short sale order, the order was at a price above the current
national best bid.
    The Exchange also proposes to state in new subparagraph (c)(1) that
the ``initial display'' of the short sale order includes the initial
display through the facilities of a securities information processor
(``SIP'') or through the Exchange's proprietary market data feed.\18\
The Exchange believes that it is important to define ``initial
display'' in Rule 11.21(c)(1) as including both display through the SIP
and the Exchanges' proprietary market data feed so as to make explicit
that the Exchange will use of both forms of display in determining
whether a particular short sale order of a covered security qualifies
for the exception under Rule 201(b)(1)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange's proprietary market data feed, called the
``NSX Depth of Book Feed,'' was made available on a uniform basis to
all ETP Holders authorized to receive the feed, as well as to any
other authorized recipients. The Exchange does not anticipate making
any changes to the availability of the NSX Depth of Book Feed upon
the resumption of trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed Rule 11.21(c)(2), the Exchange states that the System
will execute, display and route a short sale order marked ``short
exempt'' during the Short Sale Price Test Period without regard to
whether the short sale order is at a price above the national best
bid.\19\ Proposed Rule 11.21(d) provides that a Short Sale Price Test
triggered by the listing market will remain in effect for the remainder
of the trading day on which it is triggered through the close of
regular trading on the next trading day, when a national best bid for
the security is calculated and disseminated on a current and continuing
basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effective national market
system plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(iii)(B).
    \20\ See footnote 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes in Rule 11.21(e) to state that, when
the Short Sale Price Test is in effect with respect to a covered
security, the System will evaluate all incoming sell short orders in
that security that are not marked ``short exempt'' to determine whether
the order can be executed or displayed at a price above the current
national best bid. A sell short order in a covered security ``resting''
on the NSX

Book will be evaluated by the System if matched for execution during
the Short Sale Price Test Period and, unless the order was initially
displayed at a price above the current national best bid, will be
canceled if at a price equal to or below the current national best bid.
The Exchange believes that including this provision in Rule 11.21 will
enhance clarity and transparency regarding the Exchange's policies,
procedures, and System controls reasonably designed to comply with Rule
201.
    Further to the goal of enhancing transparency in the rules
regarding the operation of the System, the Exchange is also proposing
in new subparagraphs (f)(1) through (f)(9) of Rule 11.21 to describe
the operation of the System during the Short Sale Price Test Period
with respect to specific order types that are not marked ``short
exempt,'' as follows:
    Market and Limit Order. A sell short market or limit order will be
matched by the System for execution at a price above the current
national best bid and, if a limit order, within the limit price of the
sell short order. Any remaining unfilled portion will be canceled
unless, in the case of a limit order, the limit price of the remaining
shares is above the current national best bid; the unfilled portion of
such a limit order will remain on the NSX Book but will not execute
unless at a price above the current national best bid in accordance
with Rule 201(b)(1) of Regulation SHO.
    Odd Lot and Mixed Lot Order. A sell short odd lot order and a mixed
lot order, which is an order consisting of one or more round lots
combined with a number of shares constituting an odd lot,\21\ will be
rejected if entered at a price equal to or below the current national
best bid. Odd lot orders aggregated to form a round lot and initially
displayed at a price above the current national best bid, or a mixed
lot order initially displayed at a price above the current national
best bid, will be eligible for execution at a price equal to or below
the national best bid in accordance with Rule 201(b)(1)(iii)(A) of
Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 11.11(c)(3) and (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') Order. As defined in Rule
11.11(b)(1), an IOC order is a limit order that is to be executed in
whole or in part as soon as such order is received by the System and
any portion not so executed is treated as canceled. A sell short IOC
order will, upon entry, be matched by the System for execution at a
price above the current national best bid and any remaining unfilled
portion will be canceled.
    Midpoint-Seeker Order. A Midpoint-Seeker Order, which is an IOC
order that executes only against undisplayed orders priced at the
midpoint of the protected bid and protected offer,\22\ when marked
``sell short'' will, upon entry, be matched by the System for execution
at a price above the current national best bid and any remaining
unfilled portion will be canceled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Rule 11.11(c)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reserve Order. A Reserve Order is defined in Rule 11.11(c)(2) as
``[a] limit order with a portion of the quantity displayed (``display
quantity'') and with a reserve portion of the quantity (``reserve
quantity'') that is not displayed.'' A sell short Reserve Order will be
rejected by the System if it is entered at a price equal to or below
the current national best bid. A sell short Reserve Order that was
initially displayed at a price above the current national best bid may
execute at a price equal to or below the current national best bid
during a Short Sale Price Test Period, up to the full size of the order
(including any reserve quantity).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Pursuant to Rule 11.14, Priority of Orders, Interpretations
and Policies .01, the use of a ``Replace Message'' to modify the
quantity of a Reserve Order will result in a new timestamp and the
order losing time priority on the NSX Book unless (i) both the
display size of the Reserve Order is decreased and the total order
quantity is decreased or remains the same; or (ii) both the display
size of the Reserve Order remains the same and the total order
quantity is decreased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Post Only Order,\24\ NSX Only Order \25\ and Destination Specific
Order.\26\ Sell short orders in these order types will be rejected if
entered at a price equal to or below the current national best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Rule 11.11(c)(5) defines a Post Only Order as ``[a] limit
order that is to be posted on the Exchange and not routed away to
another trading center.''
    \25\ Rule 11.11(c)(6) defines an NSX Only Order as ``[a]n order
that is to be executed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 11.15(a) or
[canceled], without routing away to another trading center.''
    \26\ Rule 11.11(c)(9) defines a Destination Specific Order as
``[a] market or limit order that instructs the System to route the
order to a specified away trading center, after exposing the order
to the NSX Book . . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sweep Order, Destination Sweep Order,\27\ Intermarket Sweep
(``ISO'') and Post-ISO Order.\28\ A sell short Sweep Order, Destination
Sweep Order, ISO and Post-ISO will be rejected by the System if entered
at a price equal to or below the current national best bid. If entered
at a price above the current national best bid, such sell short orders
will be accepted by the System and eligible for execution. If an ISO is
marked ``IOC,'' any remaining unfilled portion will be canceled. The
unfilled portion of ISO orders not marked ``IOC'' and Post-ISO orders
will be entered on the NSX Book if at a price above the national best
bid. A Post ISO order that was not initially displayed at a price above
the national best bid will be canceled if matched by the System for
execution at a price equal to or below the national best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A Sweep Order is defined in Rule 11.11(c)(7) as ``[a] limit
order that instructs the System to `sweep' the market.'' The rule
provides for several types of sweep orders, specifically a
``Protected Sweep Order,'' a ``Full Sweep Order'' and a
``Destination Sweep Order.'' For purposes of System functionality
during the Short Sale Price Test Period, all of such Sweep Order
types are treated in the same manner.
    \28\ ISO is defined in Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS
pursuant to the Exchange Act, 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30). Rule
11.11(c)(8)(ii) provides that an ISO order may be designated as a
``Post-ISO'' when entered into the System, and the use of such
designation constitutes a representation that the entering ETP
Holder has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders
marked ``ISO'' as necessary to away markets to execute against the
full displayed size of any protected quotation with a price that is
superior or equal to the price of the Post ISO entered on NSX. If
these requirements are met, the Post ISO will be executed by
sweeping the NSX Book up to and including the order's limit price,
without regard to protected quotations at away markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cancel/Replacement of Orders. As proposed in new paragraph (g) of
Rule 11.21, a cancel/replace request will be rejected by the System if:
(i) The limit price on the replacement sell short order is equal to or
below the current national best bid; or (ii) if the original limit
price of the sell short order is equal to or below the current national
best bid and the cancel/replace message seeks to increase the order
size.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See footnote 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to
Rule 11.21 to describe with greater particularity the handling of
specific order types during the Short Sale Price Test Period will
further contribute to clarity and transparency in the Exchange's rules,
which will operate to the benefit of ETP Holders and their customers
and market participants generally.
Proposed Amendments Regarding Sell Short Market Peg Zero Display
Reserve Orders
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.11, subparagraphs
(c)(2)(E)(i)-(iii) regarding the System's handling of a sell short
Market Peg Zero Display Reserve Order under Rule 201by relocating the
provisions of those subparagraphs to Rule 11.21(f)(8)(i)-(iii), thereby
consolidating the Exchange's short sale order handling rules in one
rule set; and amending subparagraph (iii) to delete the provision that
any unexecuted portion of a resting sell short Market Peg Zero Display
order will be canceled if it is matched for execution during the Short

Sale Price Test at a price at or below the current national best bid.
As proposed, such an order or portion of an order will remain on the
NSX Book, but will not execute in whole or in part at a price equal to
or below the current national best bid during the Short Sale Price Test
Period. The Exchange is proposing this amendment to align the rule text
with the operation of the System in this circumstance.
    The Exchange adopted Rule 11.11(c)(2)(E)(iii) in November 2013.\30\
The rule provides that a sell short Market Peg Zero Display Reserve
Order \31\ resting on the NSX Book will track the Protected Best Bid,
which is defined in Rule 1.5P.(3) as the higher of the protected
national best bid or the best displayed bid on the NSX Book and, if
matched by the System for execution during a Short Sale Price Test in
the subject security, will be executed only to the extent that the
Protected Best Bid is above the current national best bid and the sell
short order can be executed, in whole or in part, at a price above the
current national best bid in compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO. The rule further provides that ``[a]ny such order or portion of
such order will be canceled by the System if at a price equal to or
below the current national best bid.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70881 (November 14,
2013), 78 FR 69734 (November 20, 2013) (SR-NSX-2013-20).
    \31\ Exchange Rule 11.11(c)(2)(A) defines a Market Peg Zero
Display Reserve Order as a Zero Display Reserve Order with a price
set, or ``pegged,'' to track the inside quote on the opposite side
of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange seeks to amend subparagraph (iii) to
remove the provision that specifies that a resting Market Peg Zero
Display Reserve Order or portion of such an order will be canceled by
the System if matched for execution during the Short Sale Price Test at
a price equal to or below the current national best bid. As a result of
System testing, the Exchange determined that a resting sell short
Market Peg Zero Display Reserve Order, if matched by the System for
execution during a Short Sale Price Test in the subject security, will
be executed only to the extent that the Protected Best Bid is above the
current national best bid and the sell short order can be executed, in
whole or in part, at a price above the current national best bid.
    However, System testing also indicated that, instead of canceling
any remaining unexecuted portion of such an order, the System would
leave the remaining unexecuted portion of the order on the NSX Book.
The Exchange notes that the behavior of the System in this circumstance
would not result in an execution of an order at a price equal to or
below the national best bid during the Short Sale Price Test since the
sell short Market Peg Zero Display Reserve Order would not execute
unless the national best bid moved and the unfilled order or portion of
the order could be executed at a price above the national best bid. The
Exchange also notes that it did not detect an instance where this
System behavior occurred with respect to an actual sell short Market
Peg Zero Display Reserve Order entered by an ETP Holder and resting on
the NSX Book during a Short Sale Price Test.
    Since the Exchange's testing disclosed that the behavior of the
System did not align with subparagraph (iii) and further confirmed that
no execution would occur at a price equal to or below the current
national best bid in violation of Regulation SHO, the Exchange
determined to amend the rule to remove the statement regarding
cancellation of any unexecuted portion of a sell short Market Peg Zero
Display Reserve Order if matched for execution during the Short Sale
Price Test. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to make non-
substantive changes to the text of subparagraph (iii) to align with the
language and form used in other sections of Rule 11.21 as proposed to
be amended.
Amendment of Rule 13.2, Failure To Deliver and Failure To Receive
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 13.2 to delete the existing
text and incorporate by reference Rules 200, Definition of ``Short
Sale'' and Marking Requirements, 203, Borrowing and Delivery
Requirements and 204, Close-Out Requirement, of Regulation SHO pursuant
to the Act.\32\ Currently, Rule 13.2(a) states that ``[n]o ETP Holder
shall sell a security for his own account, or buy a security as an ETP
Holder for a customer (except exempt securities), if he has a fail to
deliver in that security 60 days old or older.'' Rule 13.2(b) states
that ``[f]or good cause shown and in exceptional circumstances, an ETP
Holder may request and receive exemption from the provisions of the
Rule by written request to the Secretary of the Exchange.''
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13.2 to delete the current text
of the rule and, in its place, adopt text stating that ``[b]orrowing
and deliveries shall be effected in accordance with Rule 203 of
Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act. The Exchange incorporates by
reference Rules 200, 203 and 204 of Regulation SHO, to Exchange Rule
13.2, as if they were fully set forth herein.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 242.200, 17 CFR 242.203 and 17 CFR 242.204.
    \33\ The Exchange notes that other exchanges have adopted the
same approach with respect to their rules regarding failure to
deliver and failure to receive. See, e.g., BATS Exchange Inc. Rule
13.2 (Failure to Deliver and Failure to Receive); EDGA Exchange Inc.
Rule 13.2 (Short Sale Borrowing and Delivery Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing this amendment to remove the text
regarding failure to deliver and failure to receive a security since
such rule text is obsolete in view of the requirements set forth in
Rules 200, 203 and 204 of Regulation SHO. Specifically, Rule 200,
Definition of ``short sale'' and marking requirements, defines
ownership of a security for short sale purposes and clarifies the
requirement to determine a short seller's net aggregate position. Rule
203, Borrowing and delivery requirements, provides inter alia that,
subject to certain exceptions, a broker-dealer effecting a short sale
order in any equity security have reasonable grounds to believe that
the security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the date
delivery is due.\34\ The ``locate'' requirement must be documented
prior to the broker-dealer effecting the short sale.\35\ Rule 203(b)(3)
requires a broker-dealer to take action to close out a failure to
deliver in a ``threshold'' security that has remained open for thirteen
consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of a like kind and
quantity.\36\ Rule 204 of Regulation SHO \37\ governs the close-out
requirements applicable to both long and short sales of equity
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 242.203(b)(1).
    \35\ 17 CFR 242.203(b)(1)(iii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 242.203(b)(3).
    \37\ 17 CFR 242.204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that these provisions of Regulation SHO,
which are intended to apply uniform rules to address the failure to
deliver or failure to receive, render the Exchange's rule obsolete.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule amendments are
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act \38\ in
general, and further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \39\
in particular. The proposed amendments to the Exchange's rules are
designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles
of trade and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange's proposal is designed to provide clarity and transparency
with respect to written policies and procedures established by

the Exchange, and the System controls it implemented, to enforce the
provisions of Rule 201. To this extent, the Exchange believes that its
proposal furthers the requirements of Rule 201 that trading centers
establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale
order of a covered security in violation of the short sale price
restrictions contained in Rule 201. The proposed amendments enhance the
Exchange's written policies and procedures regarding the execution and
display of permissible orders and the execution of orders marked
``short exempt'' during the Short Sale Price Test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further submits that proposed paragraph (b) of Rule
11.21, which describes the responsibilities of ETP Holders with respect
to marking orders ``short exempt,'' and Interpretations and Policies
.01 of Rule 11.21, which states that NSXS, as the Exchange's outbound
order routing facility, relies on the ETP Holder's correct marking of
an order as ``short exempt'' without independently verifying the
accuracy of such marking, are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act. The Exchange believes that these amendments promote just and
equitable principles of trade and further the public interest by
clearly stating the ETP Holder's responsibility for correct order
marking and providing transparency as to those responsibilities in the
Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange submits that the proposed amendment to reposition Rule
11.11(c)(2)(E)(i)-(iii) to Rule 11.21, and delete the statement that a
``resting'' sell short Market Peg Zero Display Reserve Order or portion
of such an order will be canceled by the System if at a price at or
below the current national best bid, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act in that it will assure that the rule text is logically
organized and correctly describes with the operation of the System,
thereby enhancing clarity and transparency in the Exchange's rules and
promoting just and equitable principles of trade and the public
interest.
    The Exchange further submits that the proposed amendment to Rule
13.2 to incorporate by reference Rules 200, 203 and 204 of Regulation
SHO is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is
designed to impart uniformity in the regulatory requirements governing
the failure to deliver and failure to receive securities and close-out
requirements, thereby promoting cooperation and coordination in the
regulation of securities transactions and enhancing investor protection
and the public interest.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
for the furtherance of the Act. All trading centers are obligated to
comply with the provisions of Regulation SHO. The proposed rule
amendments provide additional clarity and transparency into the
Exchange's written policies and procedures for handling sell short
orders in compliance with Regulation SHO. The Exchange submits that the
proposed amendments impose no unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition and, in fact, operate to promote competition by providing
ETP Holders, their customers, and the investing public with enhanced
information regarding the Exchange's written policies and procedures
and the System functionality for handling sell short orders in
compliance with Regulation SHO.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change from market participants or others.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate,

it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \40\ of the
Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \41\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed
rule change, or such other time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange provided the Commission with the required notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become effective
and operative upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \42\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. In
support of its request, the Exchange stated that, because the rule
amendments are designed to provide greater transparency and clarity
into the Exchange's written policies and procedures for the execution
and display of permissible orders during the Short Sale Price Test and
the execution of orders marked ``short exempt.'' The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission
believes that the protection of investors and the public interest will
be enhanced by making the proposed amendments publicly available to
market participants and the investing public as soon as practicable,
and prior to the resumption of trading on the Exchange. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal as effective and operative upon filing.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \43\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (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-NSX-2015-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSX-2015-04. This file
number should be included in the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filings will also 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-NSX-2015-04 and should be submitted on
or before August 26, 2015.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to the delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19124 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

FINAL

State Implementation Plan Revision:

Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act

(Act 124 of 2008)

January 2010

Bureau of Air Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468

717-787-9495

www.depweb.state.pa.us

(Blank for two sided copying)Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan
Revision to Incorporate the Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act (Act
124 of 2008)

Purpose of Document

The purpose of this document is to request that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) incorporate the Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle
Idling Act (Act 124 of 2008) into the Pennsylvania State Implementation
Plan (SIP).  The emission reductions achieved by imposing restrictions
on the idling of diesel-powered motor vehicles with a gross weight (GW)
equal to or greater than 10,001 pounds will allow the Commonwealth to
make progress in attaining and maintaining National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) including the health-based

eight-hour ozone and fine particulate standards.

If Act 124 is incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP, it will become
enforceable by EPA, in addition to continuing to be enforceable by state
and local governmental entities.  Pennsylvania will also be able to take
credit in subsequent SIP revisions for emission reductions resulting
from compliance with Act 124.

Overview of Act 124

On October 9, 2008, Governor Rendell signed the Diesel-Powered Motor
Vehicle Idling Act (Act 124 of 2008; P.L.1511, No. 124); the law became
effective on February 6, 2009.  The act, codified at 35 P.S. §§ 4601-
4610, will reduce unnecessary idling of the main propulsion engine in
diesel-powered motor vehicles, including trucks and buses.  Act 124
prohibits the owners and drivers of any diesel-powered motor vehicle
with a gross weight of 10,001 pounds or more, engaged in commerce, from
allowing or causing the engine of the vehicle to idle for more than five
minutes in any continuous 60-minute period, except as provided in the
act.  In addition to vehicle drivers and owners, owners and operators of
locations where subject vehicles load, unload or park are also
responsible for compliance with Act 124.

Buses, school buses and school vehicles may idle for 15 minutes in a
continuous 60-minute period when passengers are aboard.  Other
exemptions address excess idling due to factors outside the drivers’
control, such as traffic or mechanical issues.  There are also
exemptions addressing idling during maintenance, vehicle equipment
inspection, and emergency or utility service functions, and idling for
security reasons.  Certain types of other vehicles including motor
homes, commercial implements of husbandry, implements of husbandry, farm
equipment, and farm vehicles are not covered by Act 124.  Additionally,
the restriction on idling does not apply if a vehicle exhibits a label
issued by the California Air Resources Board under 13 CCR
§1956.8(a)(6)(C) showing the vehicle’s engine meets the optional
nitrogen oxide (NOx) idling emission standard.

An owner or operator of a location where subject vehicles load or
unload, or where 15 or more parking spaces are provided for vehicles
subject to the act, must erect and maintain at least one permanent sign
to inform drivers that idling is restricted in Pennsylvania.  The
requirements of the law will not be incorporated into any permit issued
by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Any conviction for violations of Act 124 will result in fines ranging
from $150 to $300, plus court costs.  DEP is also authorized to assess
civil penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation of Act
124.  Although Act 124 preempts and supersedes local anti-idling
ordinances or rules, more stringent idling restrictions imposed by
counties of the first and second class (Allegheny and Philadelphia
counties) prior to Jan. 1, 2007, continue in full force and effect
provided they are not amended, suspended or rendered invalid.  See
Appendix A of this document for a copy of the law.

Benefits of Act 124

Act 124, which requires idling reduction by diesel-powered vehicles over
10,000 pounds gross weight, will help reduce emissions of pollutants
that contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter
concentrations.  Projected emission reductions, assuming at least a 50%
compliance rate, are shown below in Table 1 for volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5).

Table 1: Projected Emission Reductions from Act 124

(tons per year)

	2009	2018

VOC	45	30

NOx	1622	1600

PM2.5	30	7

In 1997, the EPA established ozone and PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS
to be more protective of public health and the environment than earlier
ozone and particulate matter standards and to ensure an adequate margin
of safety.  In October 2006, EPA further tightened the 24-hour PM2.5
standard, and in March 2008, EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone
standards.  In September 2009, EPA announced that it will reconsider the
2008 ozone standard in order to ensure the standard is clearly grounded
in science, protects public health with an adequate margin of safety,
and is sufficient to protect the environment.

Fine particles or PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or
less) in the atmosphere are made up of a complex mixture of components.
Some, like diesel particulate, are emitted directly into the air
(primary sources) and others, such as sulfate and nitrate, form in the
air as a result of various chemical reactions (secondary sources).  The
health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 are significant, and
the evidence for these effects is compelling.  Premature mortality,
aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function and asthma attacks have been attributed to
exposure to PM2.5.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly to the atmosphere but is
formed by a photochemical reaction between VOCs and NOx in the presence
of sunlight.  Heavy-duty vehicles contributed about 25% of all NOx
emissions in this Commonwealth in 2002.  (Compared to gasoline-powered
vehicles, diesel vehicles are not a significant source of VOCs.)
Repeated exposure to ozone pollution may cause a variety of adverse
health effects for healthy people and those with existing conditions,
including difficulty in breathing, chest pains, coughing, nausea, throat
irritation and congestion.  It can exacerbate bronchitis, heart disease,
emphysema, and reduce lung capacity.  Ozone can aggravate asthma,
causing more asthma attacks, increased use of medication, more medical
treatment and more frequent visits to hospital emergency clinics.  Ozone
also has adverse effects on vegetation (forests and food crops) and,
through deposition of NOx precursors, contributes to pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay.

Furthermore, EPA and other agencies have evaluated the health effects of
direct exposure to diesel particulate matter.  The small size of diesel
exhaust particles allows them to be drawn deeply into the lungs.  Diesel
particulates are, for the most part, even smaller than 2.5 micrometers.
The EPA has said that long-term exposure to diesel particulate exhaust
is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard.  Exposure to diesel particulates
has non-cancer and acute effects as well, including throat and eye
irritation and inflammation, exacerbation of existing respiratory and
allergic conditions, and exacerbated risk of heart attacks.  Studies
indicate that children living near highways have more lung and breathing
problems than other children.  Children may also be exposed to more
diesel exhaust inside diesel school buses, especially in idling buses
that queue.  People commuting to work in almost any mode of
transportation along truck routes are exposed to high levels of diesel
fine particulate matter.

Vehicle operators, the people in the closest proximity to diesel
exhaust, will benefit most, particularly drivers of long-haul vehicles.
In addition to cleaner air, the noise of their sleeper berth should
decrease if power is supplied by an alternative power source.  This
should lead to a more rested truck driver.  The National Transportation
Safety Board has cited fatigue as a major cause of accidents in which
long-haul trucks are involved.  Nearly 500,000 trucks in the nation are
dedicated to long-haul trips.  Since trucking companies need to replace
truck drivers constantly due to high turnover rates, more truck
operators would be affected than there are number of trucks.  It is
possible that most, if not all, long-haul drivers will idle in this
Commonwealth at some time.  Including bus drivers and local drivers in
this Commonwealth, there are nearly one million drivers who may benefit
through reduced exposure to diesel emissions.

In addition, because idling heavy-duty vehicles consume approximately
one gallon of fuel per hour, reducing idling will save diesel vehicle
owners and operators money over the long run.  Because the United States
increasingly relies on imported fuel for transportation needs, reducing
idling will contribute to the country's energy independence.  Another
benefit of reducing idling is the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, a major greenhouse gas.  Idling heavy-duty diesel vehicles
can produce as much as 22.2 pounds of CO2 for every hour of idling time.

Public Comment

Requirements for a public comment process are set forth in Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR Section 51.102(d).  Public hearings on
the incorporation of Act 124 into the Pennsylvania SIP were held in
Harrisburg on September 17, 2009, and in Norristown and Pittsburgh on
September 18, 2009.  Notice of the hearings was published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin on August 15, 2009, and in newspapers in general
circulation at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing.  The
public comment period ended on Friday, September 25, 2009.  A
comment/response document has been developed and is being submitted to
EPA with this final SIP revision.

Appendix A

ACT 124

Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Idling Act

(P.L. 1511, No. 124)

 PAGE

  PAGE  2

Incorporation of Act 124: SIP Revision

John Hanger

Secretary

Edward G. Rendell

Governor


 1 MEMO TO: Record FROM: Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech DATE: 8/ 25/ 2003 RE: Diver safety issues relating to the implementation of 316( b) at marine intakes Introduction Tetra Tech was directed by EPA to investigate the issue of diver safety as it related to the possible implementation of 316( b) at marine intakes, such as oil and gas platforms. Industry commenters had raised the issue to EPA, noting that commercial diving is inherently a very dangerous activity and that EPA should consider the risks and costs associated with such activities.

Tetra Tech's findings suggest that while commercial diving is a dangerous activity, properly executed dives should not result in any additional risk to human health or worker safety. These findings, however, do not reflect upon the potentially extensive safety measures in place that may have a significant effect on the cost of any commercial diving operations as a result of the rule.

Information Gathering Tetra Tech's efforts focused primarily on internet searches and phone calls. The first resource was the website for the US Navy's " Seabees," a branch comprised of naval engineers. After an email, I was contacted by Phil Vitale ( 7/ 10/ 2003), who referred me to the Corps of Engineers safety regulations. He stated that Navy divers usually followed these regulations in performing dives, as opposed to similar OSHA regulations, as the Navy's dive tables are more conservative than OSHA. However, he stated that qualified divers don't tend to have problems performing complex dives, as long as the dive team is properly trained, equipped, and staffed. He also agreed that deeper dives would be more expensive. He then referred me to the Association of Diving Contractors ( ADC), which represents certified commercial dive companies across the U. S.

I spoke to Ross Saxon, the executive director of ADC ( 7/ 10/ 2003). He stated that it would be very difficult to approximate dive times, the number of divers required, and other factors without knowing more specific information, but did offer that many intake pipes already have screens. ADC does keep some statistics on diver safety issues, but these are not for publication. In general, Mr. Saxon expressed great concern over the feasibility of performing modifications of water intakes, as the procedure would be very complex and offer minimal benefits in return.

Following some further websurfing at OSHA's website, I discovered that OSHA is presently revising its safety regulations governing commercial dive operations. I was contacted by Rob Bell ( 7/ 29/ 2003), who stated that changes in pressure are the greatest danger to dive teams ( e. g., 2 suction at a pipe, water flowing over a dam, etc.). He also stated that dive teams are to be comprised of a minimum of three divers. He referred me to another contact at the Department of Labor ( DOL) involved with maritime compliance.

I then spoke to Steve Butler ( 7/ 29/ 2003) at DOL. He stated that OSHA's regulations are very thorough and cover all portions of a dive operation. He was also able to provide some generic statistics regarding diver safety and noted that the leading cause of injury is due to non compliant dives. There have been approximately 100 deaths during commercial dives in the U. S. in the past 10+ years, out of a population of about 7000 commercial divers. About half of those deaths were due to unsafe or non complaint dives or due to poor training. Of the remaining dives, about 2/ 3 of the fatalities were due to pressure differentials.

Mr. Butler went on to state that the current revisions that OSHA is seeking ( with the support of ADC) would be more conservative and require additional safety measures. For example, dives near a suction would enact a safety plan with a full shutdown of the source of the suction. He also expressed concern that any regulations proposed by EPA should not override or conflict with safety regulations from OSHA. He requested that OSHA be consulted in the regulatory development process if EPA decides to require modifications to marine intakes. I sent him an email with some background information, the schedule for the rulemaking, and a link to the 316( b) homepage.

I also sent all of this information to our costing engineers, so that they could cross check the personnel requirements and account for any safety concerns in the cost estimates.

Conclusions Based on the above information, there is no reason to suspect that a properly executed dive to modify an intake structure will create any additional risk to human health or worker safety. Presumably, EPA would direct facilities to fully adhere to any and all safety regulations when performing any modifications. EPA and Tetra Tech should, however, ensure that a properly equipped and staffed dive team is included in its costs estimates.


[Federal Register: June 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31232-31234]
[DOCID:fr01jn06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53858; File No. SR-Amex-2006-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund

May 24, 2006.
    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 May 23, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Amex
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise the manner in which the Deutsche
Bank Liquid Commodity IndexTM--Excess Return (the ``DBLCI''
or ``Index'') is maintained in connection with the listing and trading
of the DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (the ``Trust'' or ``Fund'').
The Commission previously approved the listing and trading of the
shares of the Fund on the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange has designated this
proposal as non-controversial and has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act.\6\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Amex's Web site (http://www.amex.com), at the Amex's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53105 (January 11,
2006), 71 FR 3129 (January 19, 2006) (approving the listing and
trading of the DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Amex 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 Amex 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 the proposal is to clarify the manner in which the
DBLCI is maintained. In particular, the proposal seeks to provide that
the replacement of expiring futures contracts will be based on
``Optimal Yield'' roll rules for the DBLCI, which are described in
detail below. The effect of this change will be to maximize the
benefits of rolling in backwardated \7\ markets and minimize the loss
from rolling in markets in contango.\8\ The Exchange proposes that the
proposed change be operative June 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Backwardation'' refers to a condition in which commodity
deliveries in the near future have a higher price than those made
later on. This occurs when demand for the commodity is greater in
the near term.
    \8\ ``Contango'' refers to a condition in which distant delivery
prices for futures exceed spot prices, often due to the costs of
storing and insuring the underlying commodity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adoption of this change to futures
replacement will mitigate losses associated with contango conditions
and maximize gains associated with backwardated conditions, thereby
benefiting investors.\9\ A contango condition erodes investor returns/
yields because the price of the futures contract being sold, i.e., the
nearby futures contract, is less than the price of the futures contract
being purchased, i.e., a futures contract expiring in a later month
than the nearby futures contract. Conversely, a backwardated condition
benefits investors by increasing returns/yields because the price of
the futures contract being sold, i.e., the nearby futures contract, is
greater than the price of the futures contract being purchased, i.e., a
futures contract expiring in a later month than the nearby futures
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A contango market will tend to cause a drag on the Index
while a backwardated market will tend to cause a push on the Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the expiring futures contracts are replaced monthly
(other than in November) during the first week of the month in the case
of futures contracts relating to crude oil and heating oil and annually
in November in the case of futures contracts relating to aluminum,
gold, corn and wheat. Crude oil and heating oil futures contracts are
always replaced with the contract expiring in the next month; aluminum,
gold, corn and wheat contracts are always replaced with a contract
expiring in one year. The Index Sponsor and the Exchange believe that
instituting ``Optimal Yield'' roll rules for the Index futures
contracts, which require the Index Sponsor to replace expiring
contracts in the Index with the highest yielding or ``optimal'' futures
contract that will expire in no more than thirteen (13) months, will
provide greater flexibility for the Index Sponsor to reduce the effects
of contango conditions and increase the benefits of backwardation for
the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
    Under this proposal, an existing contract must be replaced with a
longer-dated contract if the existing contract is within a
predetermined number of months of its expiration depending on the
particular commodity and based on the historical liquidity of the
particular commodity as it approached expiration. The new futures
contract will be the contract with the maximum implied roll yield over
the next 13 months. The maximum implied roll yield is determined by
inputting the prices of the contracts expiring in future months and the
price of the existing contract into a formula that compares the prices
and accounts for the time value associated with those prices based on
the time-to-expiration of each contract. If two (2) contracts for a
particular commodity have the same maximum implied roll yield, the
contract with the maximum yield and minimum time to expiration will be
selected. Once the contract is selected, the monthly index roll will
unwind the old futures contract and enter a position in the new
contract. This will occur between the 2nd and 6th business days of the
month.
    The Exchange in this proposal solely seeks to permit the listing
and trading of the shares of the Fund based on the revised Index
replacement mechanism. This revision will be fully disclosed to the
marketplace and investors through a regulatory filing by the Fund, as
well as information on the Fund's Web site at http://www.dbcfund.db.com.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public

interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Amex provided the Commission with written notice
of its intent to file this proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed change, at least five business
days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposed rule change is operative on June
1, 2006. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal seeks to change the manner in which
futures contracts comprising the DBLCI are replaced or ``rolled'' so
that the effects of contango are reduced while the benefits of
backwardation are increased to the advantage of investors and the
marketplace. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to
be operative on June 1, 2006, as requested by the Exchange.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-53 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-53. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-53 and should be submitted on or before June
22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8438 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3832-3833]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046]

QPS Evaluation Services Inc.: Application for Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of QPS
Evaluation Services Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before February 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0046). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before February 8, 2016 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing
notice that QPS Evaluation Services Inc. (QPS), is applying for
expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. QPS requests the
addition of one test standard to its NRTL scope of recognition.

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard, and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL,
including QPS, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    QPS currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for
product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at:
QPS Evaluation Services, Inc. 81 Kelfield Street, Unit 8, Toronto,
Ontario, M9W 5A3, Canada. A complete list of QPS's scope of recognition
is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/qps.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    QPS submitted an application, dated July 28, 2014 (OSHA-2010-0046-
0005), to expand its recognition to include one additional test
standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-
site review in relation to this application on July 16-17, 2015.
    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standard found in QPS's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standard for Inclusion in QPS's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/AAMI ES 60601-1: 2005/(R)2012  Medical Electrical Equipment--Part
                                     1: General Requirements for Basic
                                     Safety and Essential Performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    QPS submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope
of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent
documentation, indicate that QPS can meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition
of this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed
above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of QPS's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QPS meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit
the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request
is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits
identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health whether to grant QPS's application for expansion of
its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Federal Register.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 19, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-01284 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38758-38759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13962]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78013; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Penny Pilot Program

June 8, 2016.
    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 June 1, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of Penny Pilot
Program through December 31, 2016. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided below. (additions are in italics; deletions are
[bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.42. Minimum Increments for Bids and Offers

    The Board of Directors may establish minimum increments for options
traded on the Exchange. When the Board of Directors determines to
change the minimum increments, the Exchange will designate such change
as a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the
administration of Rule 6.42 within the meaning of subparagraph (3)(A)
of subsection 19(b) of the Exchange Act and will file a rule change for
effectiveness upon filing with the Commission. Until such time as the
Board of Directors makes a change to the minimum increments, the
following minimum increments shall apply to options traded on the
Exchange:
    (1) No change.
    (2) No change.
    (3) The decimal increments for bids and offers for all series of
the option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program are: $0.01
for all option series quoted below $3 (including LEAPS), and $0.05 for
all option series $3 and above (including LEAPS). For QQQQs, IWM, and
SPY, the minimum increment is $0.01 for all option series. The Exchange
may replace any option class participating in the Penny Pilot Program
that has been delisted with the next most actively-traded, multiply-
listed option class, based on national average daily volume in the
preceding six calendar months, that is not yet included in the Pilot
Program. Any replacement class would be added on the second trading day
following [July 1, 2015 and January 1, 2016]July 1, 2016. The Penny
Pilot shall expire on [June 30, 2016]December 31, 2016.
    (4) No change.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.04 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Penny Pilot Program (the ``Pilot Program'') is scheduled to
expire on June 30, 2016. CBOE proposes to extend the Pilot Program
until December 31, 2016. CBOE believes that extending the Pilot Program
will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a
determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the
future.
    During this extension of the Pilot Program, CBOE proposes that it
may replace any option class that is currently included in the Pilot
Program and that has been delisted with the next most actively traded,
multiply listed option class that is not yet participating in the Pilot
Program (``replacement class''). Any replacement class would be
determined based on national average daily volume in the preceding six
months,\5\ and would be added on the second trading day following July
1, 2016. CBOE will employ the same parameters to prospective
replacement classes as approved and applicable in determining the
existing classes in the Pilot Program, including excluding high-priced
underlying securities.\6\ CBOE will announce to its Trading Permit
Holders by circular any replacement classes in the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) would not be used for
purposes of the six-month analysis. Thus, a replacement class to be
added on the second trading day following July 1, 2016 would be
identified based on The Option Clearing Corporation's trading volume
data from December 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60864 (October 22,
2009), 74 FR 55876 (October 29, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. In particular, the proposed
rule change allows for an extension of the Pilot Program for the
benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program shall be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. In addition, the
Exchange has been authorized to act jointly in extending the Pilot
Program and believes the other exchanges will be filing similar
extensions.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-048 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-048. 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-CBOE-2016-048 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13962 Filed 6-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 77227]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2070]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA published a document in the Federal Register of October
6, 2020, concerning a proposed flood hazard determination. The document
contained an erroneous table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 6, 2020, in FR Doc 2020-22084,
on page 63132, correct the table containing data for Louisa County,
Iowa and Incorporated Areas to read:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Louisa County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 15-07-0720S Preliminary Date: January 31, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Columbus Junction..............  City Hall, 232 2nd Street,
                                          Columbus Junction, IA 52738.
City of Fredonia.......................  Louisa County Courthouse, 117
                                          South Main Street, Wapello, IA
                                          52653.
City of Letts..........................  City Hall, 125 East Iowa
                                          Street, Letts, IA 52754.
City of Morning Sun....................  City Hall, 11 East Division
                                          Street, Morning Sun, IA 52640.
City of Oakville.......................  City Hall, 601 2nd Street,
                                          Oakville, IA 52646.
City of Wapello........................  City Hall, 335 North Main
                                          Street, Wapello, IA 52653.
Unincorporated Areas of Louisa County..  Louisa County Courthouse, 117
                                          South Main Street, Wapello, IA
                                          52653.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-26486 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P