[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9878-9879]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2649-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Refund Report for June 2021 spot market sales of
Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1065-000.
    Applicants: SAGE Development Authority.
    Description: Request for Prospective Tariff Waiver, et al. of SAGE
Development Authority.
    Filed Date: 2/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20230207-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1072-000.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Open Access
Transmission Tariff for Maine Public District to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230208-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1073-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-02-09_SA 3489 Duke-
Speedway Solar 2nd Rev GIA (J805) to be effective 1/27/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1074-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Metro, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment Reflecting
Transfer of Ownership of Certain Interconnection Equipment to be
effective 2/10/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1075-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4138; Queue No. AD2-075 to be effective 1/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1076-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
02-09_SA 2799 ATC-City of New London 2nd Rev CFA to be effective 4/11/
2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1077-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2023-02-09 EGF Trans FAC 483 0.1.0
NOC to be effective 12/31/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1078-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Rate Schedule
No. 6 with DEF_Dale Mabry and Morgan to be effective 4/11/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1079-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6206; Queue No. AE1-196 to be effective 4/11/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1080-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 408,
HooDoo Wash LGIA to be effective 1/10/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1081-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service
Agreement No. 6806; Queue No. S14 to be effective 1/10/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20230209-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/23.

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

    Dated: February 9, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03203 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

Subject: 	GHGHD2_BenefitCostAnalysis DVD

From:		Todd Sherwood, ASD, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

To:		Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOCKET EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

Date:		July 19, 2016

	EPA's benefit-cost analysis files in support of the heavy-duty phase 2 GHG and fuel consumption rulemaking are contained on this DVD. The DVD contains input files, Python scripts and output files. Also included is a brief readme file to assist in understanding the contents of the DVD and the order of running the Python scripts. More information can be found by contacting Todd Sherwood<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Attachments:	Physical DVD titled GHGHD2_BCA


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66360-66363]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055]

Steel Erection Standard; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Steel Erection
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
December 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Please note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and
process submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Docket Office is closed to the public and not able to received
submissions to the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0055) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, such as social security numbers and dates of birth, are placed
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) 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 website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
(202) 693-2222 to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired
format, the reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act, or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires OSHA to obtain
such information with a minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining said
information (29 U.S.C. 657).

Section 1926.752(a)(1)

    Based on the results of a specified method for testing field-cured
samples, the controlling contractor must provide the steel erector with
written notification that the concrete in the footings, piers, and
walls, or the mortar in the masonry piers and walls, is at 75% of the
minimum compressive-design strength or has sufficient strength to
support loads imposed during steel erection. Note: This is not and will
not be enforced for mortar in piers and walls until such time as OSHA
is able to define an appropriate substitute or until an appropriate
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method is
developed.

Sections 1926.752(a)(2) and 1926.755(b)(1)

    Under Sec.  1926.752(a)(2), the controlling contractor, before it
authorizes commencement of steel erection, must notify the steel
erector in writing that any repairs, replacements, and modifications to
anchor bolts (rods) have been made in accordance with Sec.
1926.755(b)(1) which requires the controlling contractor to obtain
approval from the project structural engineer of record for the
repairs, replacements, and modifications.

Section 1926.753(c)(5)

    Employers must not deactivate safety latches on hooks or make them
inoperable except for the situation when: A qualified rigger determines
that it is safer to hoist and place purlins and single joists by doing
so; or except when equivalent protection is provided in the site-
specific erection plan.

Section 1926.753(e)(2)

    Employers must have the maximum capacity of the total multiple-lift
rigging assembly, as well as each of the individual attachment points,
certified by the manufacturer, or a qualified rigger.

Sections 1926.755(b)(1) and 1926.755(b)(2)

    Under Sec.  1926.755(b)(2), throughout steel erection the
controlling contractor must notify the steel erector in writing of
additional repairs, replacements, and modifications of anchor bolts
(rods); Sec.  1926.755(b)(1) requires that these repairs, replacements,
and modifications not be made without approval from the project
structural engineer of record.

Section 1926.757(a)(4)

    If steel joists at or near columns span more than 60 feet,
employers must set the joists in tandem with all bridging installed.
However, the employer may use an alternative method of erection if a
qualified person develops the alternative method, it provides
equivalent stability, and the employer includes the method in the site-
specific erection plan.

Section 1926.757(a)(7)

    Employers must not modify steel joists or steel joist girders in a
way that affects their strength without the approval of the project
structural engineer of record.

Sections 1926.757(a)(9) and 1926.758(g)

    An employer can use a steel joist, steel joist girder, purlin, or
girt as an anchorage point for a fall-arrest system only with the
written approval of a qualified person.

Section 1926.757(e)(4)(i)

    An employer must install and anchor all bridging on joists and
attach all joist bearing ends before placing a bundle of decking on the
joists, unless: a qualified person determines that the structure or
portion of the structure is capable of supporting the bundle, the
employer documents this determination in the site-specific erection
plan, and follows the additional requirements specified in Sec. Sec.
1926.757(e)(4)(ii)-(vi).

Sections 1926.760(e) and (e)(1)

    The steel erector can leave the fall protection at the jobsite
after completion of the erection activity only if the controlling
contractor or the authorized representative directs the steel erector
to do so and inspects and accepts responsibility for the fall
protection.

Section 1926.752(e) and Appendix A to Subpart R, ``Guidelines for
Establishing the Components of a Site-Specific Erection Plan: Non-
Mandatory Guidelines for Complying with 1926.752(e),'' Paragraph (a)

    Site-specific erection plan. Where employers elect, due to
conditions specific to the site, to develop alternate means and methods
that provide employee protection in accordance with Sec. Sec.
1926.753(c)(5), 1926.757(a)(4), or 1926.757(e)(4), a site-specific
erection plan shall be developed by a qualified person and be available
at the work site. Guidelines for establishing a site-specific erection
plan are contained in Appendix A to this subpart.
    Appendix A to Subpart R, paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of the
Appendix provides for the development of a site-specific erection plan.
Preconstruction conference(s) and site inspection(s) are held between
the erector and the controlling contractor, and others such as the
project engineer and fabricator before the start of steel erection. The
purpose of such conference(s) is to develop and review the site-
specific erection plan that will meet the requirements of this section.
    Appendix A to Subpart R, paragraphs (c), (c)(1)-(c)(9), (d), (d)(1)
and (d)(2). These paragraphs of Appendix A describe the components of a
site-specific erection plan, including: The sequence of erection
activity developed in coordination with the controlling contractor; a
description of the crane and derrick selection and placement
procedures; a description of the fall protection procedures that will
be used to comply with Sec.  1926.760; a description of the procedures
that will be used to comply with Sec.  1926.759; a description of the
special procedures required for hazardous non-routine tasks; a
certification for each employee who has received training for
performing steel erection operations as required by Sec.  1926.761; a
list of the qualified and competent persons; a description of the
procedures that will be utilized in the event of rescue or emergency
response; the identification of the site and project; and signed and
dated by the qualified person(s) responsible for the preparation and
modification.

Paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Appendix G to Subpart R

    This mandatory appendix duplicates the regulatory requirements of
Sec.  1926.502 (``Fall protection systems criteria and practices''),
notably the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(4)(ii). This
paragraph addresses the certification of safety nets as an option
available to employers who can demonstrate that performing a drop test
on safety nets is unreasonable. This provision allows such employers to
certify that their safety nets, including the installation of the nets,
protect workers at least as well as safety nets that meet the drop-test
criteria. The employer must complete the certification process prior to
using the net for fall protection, and the certificate must include the
following information: identification of the net and the type of
installation used for the net; the date the certifying party determined
that the net and the installation would meet the drop-test criteria;
and the signature of the party making this determination. The most
recent certificate must be available at the jobsite for inspection.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply--
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of 3,337 burden hours
from 30,819 34,156 hours. This increase is the result of an estimated
increase in the number of covered employers. The total estimated number
of establishments affected by the regulation increased from 16,748 to
18,468, a total adjustment of 1,720 more establishments, based on
updated data.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Steel Erection (29 CFR 1926, Subpart R).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0241.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 18,468.
    Frequency: On Occasion; Quarterly; Annually; Immediately; Within 24
hours; Within 30 days.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 101,624.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 34,156.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0055) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify electronic comments by
your name, date, and the docket number so that the agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44

U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 13, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-23027 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 9159-9160]
[DOCID:fr19fe08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket Nos FMCSA 01-10678, FMCSA 03-16241]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 10 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the
comments submitted in response to the previous announcement and
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a

2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statutes also allow the Agency
to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The Notice was
published on December 19, 2007. The comment period ended on January 18,
2008.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSR,
including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to
the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally (4) suggests
that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions.
    The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR
51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR
69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230
(September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not
address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 10 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for, Ronald G. Austin, Rickey C. Dalton, Martiniano
L. Espinosa, Derek T. Ford, Paul C. Gruenberg, Jr., James G. LaBair,
Dennis A. Leschke, Lonnie Lomax, Jr., Eugene C. Murphy, and Carl W.
Skinner, Jr.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
    The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: February 11, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-2983 Filed 2-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34074-34077]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92230; File No. SR-BX-2021-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees, at Equity 7, Section 118(e)

June 22, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 10, 2021, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees, at
Equity 7, Section 118(e), as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office

of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, Section 118(e), which consists of several
different credits and fees for Retail Orders \3\ and Retail Price
Improvement Orders \4\ under Rule 4780 (Retail Price Improvement
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a Non-Display
Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Rule 4702(b)(6).
    \4\ Retail Price Improving (``RPI'') Orders shall mean an Order
Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule
4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price
increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as
``RPI Interest.'' See Rule 4702(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges a fee of $0.0025 per share executed
for RPI Orders that provide liquidity. The Exchange proposes to adopt a
new fee of $0.0018 per share executed for RPI Orders entered by a
member that (i) quotes Retail Price Improvement Orders in at least
2,500 symbols on average per day and (ii) provides liquidity through
Retail Price Improvement Orders equal to or exceeding an average daily
volume of 2,500,000 shares. The Exchange will continue to charge a fee
of $0.0025 per share executed for all other RPI Orders that provide
liquidity. The Exchange hopes that the proposed lower fee will
encourage member organizations to increase liquidity providing activity
on RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in
achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's market will
improve, particularly with respect to RPI and retail orders to the
benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail
Orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable and Is an Equitable Allocation of Charges
    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits and
charges is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the
Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for
equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
It is also only one of several taker-maker exchanges. Competing equity
exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the
Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon
members achieving certain volume thresholds.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE BYX Fee Schedule, at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/; NYSE National Fee Schedule,
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/NYSE_National_Schedule_of_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.\10\ Within
the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by
the Exchange to increase its market share relative to its competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange perceives no regulatory, structural, or cost
impediments to market participants shifting order flow away from it.
In particular, the Exchange notes that these examples of shifts in
liquidity and market share, along with many others, have occurred
within the context of market participants' existing duties of Best
Execution and obligations under the Order Protection Rule under
Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to adopt a new
$0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI Orders entered by a member that
(i) quotes Retail Price Improvement Orders in at least 2,500 symbols on
average per day and (ii) provides liquidity through Retail Price
Improvement Orders equal to or exceeding an average daily volume of
2,500,000 shares. As discussed above, the Exchange's goal is to
increase liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders on its platform. It is
reasonable and equitable to address this need by

providing a lower fee to member organizations that meet the proposed
thresholds as an incentive for them to increase their liquidity
activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in
achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's market will
improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail orders to the
benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail
Orders.
The Proposed Fee Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members that submit RPI and Retail Orders on the Exchange and by
extension attract more liquidity to the market, improving market wide
quality and price discovery. Although net adders of liquidity for RPI
Orders will benefit most from the proposal, this result is fair insofar
as increased liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders will help to
improve market quality and the attractiveness of the Nasdaq BX market
to all existing and prospective retail participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all member organizations of the Exchange will benefit from
any increase in market activity that the proposal effectuates. Member
organizations may modify their businesses so that they can meet the
required thresholds and pay lower charges. Moreover, members are free
to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the fees
assessed, and credits provided, are not attractive. As one can observe
by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The Exchange
notes that the tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee
practices as well as the other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its
schedule of credits and charges will not impose a burden on competition
because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and
subject to extensive competition from the other live exchanges and from
off-exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems that
trade national market system stock. The Exchange notes that it operates
in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed charge for adding liquidity is reflective of this
competition because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively
small market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is
limited. In this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by
volume has less than 17-18% market share, which in most markets could
hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprised more than 40% of industry volume in recent months.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed change to its fees
for RPI Orders, in the aggregate, to increase member incentives to
engage in the addition of liquidity on the Exchange. If the additional
fee proposed herein is unattractive to market participants, it is
likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2021-028 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-BX-2021-028. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2021-028 and should be submitted on
or before July 19, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13657 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31667-31668]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64543; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing a
Revenue Sharing Program With Correlix, Inc. and a Free Trial Period for
New Users of the Correlix Service

May 25, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 18, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
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 Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a revenue sharing program with
Correlix, Inc. (``Correlix'') and a free trial period for new users of
the Correlix service. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is filing a proposed rule change to establish a
revenue sharing program with Correlix effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Exchange has entered into an agreement with Correlix to
provide to users \3\ of the Exchange real-time analytical tools to
measure the latency of orders to and from the Exchange's system as well
as the latency of market data updates transmitted from the Exchange
systems to the user. Under the agreement, the Exchange will receive 30%
of the total monthly subscription fees received by Correlix from
parties who have contracted directly with Correlix to use their
RaceTeam latency measurement service for the Exchange. The Exchange
will not bill or contract with any Correlix RaceTeam customer directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this filing, the term ``users'' includes
any ``member organization,'' as that term is defined in NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 2(b), any ``Sponsored Participant,'' as that term is
defined in either NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123B.30(a)(ii)(B) or NYSE
Amex (Options) Rule 900.2NY(77), or any ``ATP Holder,'' as that term
is defined in NYSE Amex (Options) Rule 900.2NY(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pricing for the Correlix RaceTeam product for users of the Exchange
will be based on the number of ports requested by the user for
monitoring by Correlix; each ``port'' is a FIX or binary protocol
connection to the Common Customer Gateway (``CCG'') of NYSE Euronext,
which provides connectivity to the national securities exchanges
operated by NYSE Euronext (i.e., NYSE Amex, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')).\4\ The fee for
equities users of the Exchange will be an initial $2,500 monthly base
fee for the first 25 ports requested by the user for latency
monitoring, and an additional $1,000 per month for each additional 25
ports (or portion thereof) requested by the user for latency
monitoring. The fee for options users of the Exchange will be an
initial $1,500 monthly fee for the first 25 ports requested by the user
for latency monitoring, and an additional $750 per month for each
additional 25 ports (or portion thereof).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE and NYSE Arca have submitted similar rule filings. See
SR-NYSE-2011-13 and SR-NYSEArca-2011-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Correlix will charge for services based on the number of ports
because of the CCG technology, which is unique to the NYSE Euronext
exchanges. Specifically, the use of ports as the basis of charging will
permit order-related messages transmitted through the CCG to the
various NYSE Euronext markets (e.g., NYSE Amex equities vs. NYSE or
NYSE Amex equities vs. NYSE Amex options) to be differentiated and kept
separate. For these purposes, the combination of port and user ID
provides the mechanism for users to receive latency data for their
transactions on a particular NYSE Euronext market. The Correlix
RaceTeam product will include controls such that users will not be able
to obtain latency information about options orders through an equities
port connection and vice versa.
    Under the program, Correlix will see an individualized unique NYSE
Amex generated identifier that will allow Correlix RaceTeam to
determine round trip order time,\5\ from the time the order reaches the
Exchange extranet, through the Exchange matching engine, and back out
of the Exchange extranet. The RaceTeam product offering does not
measure latency outside of the Exchange extranet. The unique identifier
serves as a technological information barrier so that the RaceTeam data
collector will only be able to view data for Correlix RaceTeam
subscribing users related to latency. Correlix will not see
subscriber's individual order detail such as security, price or size.
Individual RaceTeam subscribers' logins will restrict access to only
their own latency data. Correlix will see no specific information
regarding the trading activity of non-subscribers. The Exchange
believes that the above arrangement will provide users of the Exchange
with greater transparency into the processing of their trading activity
and allow them to make more efficient trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The product measures latency of orders whether the orders
are rejected, executed, or partially executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to establish a flexible 60-day
free trial so parties will be eligible for one free 60-day trial period
of Correlix services whenever they initially elect to sign-up for the
service, now or in the future. The Exchange is proposing the flexible
trial to ensure that all Correlix users have an equal opportunity to
take advantage of an initial free trial period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The

Exchange believes the proposed rule will provide greater transparency
into trade and information processing and thus allow market
participants to make better-informed and more efficient trading
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general,
and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system that the Exchange operates or controls. In
particular, NYSE Amex notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct orders to
competing venues and that use of the Correlix RaceTeam product is
completely voluntary. Further, NYSE Amex makes the RaceTeam product
uniformly available pursuant to a standard non-discriminatory pricing
schedule offered by Correlix and will offer the free trial period on a
uniform and non-discriminatory basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
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)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. The Commission notes that revenue sharing programs
with Correlix for the provision of latency information have been
approved previously by the Commission for other markets.\12\ Waiver of
the 30-day operative delay will ensure that the free period is made
available to all interested parties without delay. Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 62605 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR
47651 (August 6, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-068); 62928 (September 17,
2010), 75 FR 58002 (September 23, 2010) (SR-EDGA-2010-09); 62929
(September 17, 2010), 75 FR 58003 (September 23, 2010) (SR-EDGX-
2010-09).
    \13\ For the 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.
78(c)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEAmex-2011-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-20. 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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. 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-NYSEAmex-2011-20 and should be submitted
on or before June 22, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13419 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P