[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5462-5466]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0025]

Proposed Revocation of Permanent Variances Granted for Chimney
Construction

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

ACTION: Notice proposing to revoke permanent variances and requesting
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (``OSHA'' or the ``Agency'') is proposing to revoke
permanent variances that it granted between 1973 and 2010 to 24
companies engaged in chimney construction (hereafter, ``previous
variances''). The previous variances provided the companies with an
alternative means of complying with provisions of OSHA standards
regulating boatswains' chairs, personnel platforms, and hoist towers.
On October 2, 2013, OSHA published a Federal Register notice (78 FR
60900) in which it updated the previous variances with a single,
permanent variance (``the uniform variance''). The 2013 Federal
Register notice granted the uniform variance to a number of the
companies that held previous variances.
    OSHA determined that, compared to the previous variances, the
uniform variance: (1) provides more consistency across the conditions
specified by the variance, thereby expediting OSHA's enforcement of the
conditions; (2) allows employers to use updated technology and industry
practices; and (3) increases worker safety. Therefore, OSHA is
proposing to revoke the previous variances and to invite employers not
covered by the uniform variance to submit applications for an
equivalent variance.

DATES: Parties affected by this proposed action must submit comments
and requests for a hearing (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 3,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Electronic. Submit comments and requests for a hearing
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments, and clearly indicate the docket number in the submission
(OSHA-2013-0025).
    Facsimile. OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments that are
10 pages or fewer in length (including attachments), as well as hearing
requests. Send these comments and requests to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of comments or
hearing requests.
    Instead of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that
supplement their comments (e.g., studies and journal articles),
commenters may submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and docket number
(i.e., OSHA-2013-0025) so that the Agency can attach them to the
appropriate comments.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
(courier) service. Submit comments and any additional material (e.g.,
studies and journal articles), as well as hearing requests, to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0025, Technical Data Center, Room
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627). Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation
for the OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor are 8:15 a.m. to
4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions. All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2013-0025). OSHA will
place comments and other material, including any personal information,
in the public docket without revision, and these comments and material
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.
    Docket. To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. The electronic docket for this proposed
revocation established at http://www.regulations.gov lists most of the
documents in the docket; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
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.

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 David Johnson, 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; telephone: (202) 693-
2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page includes
information about the Variance Program (see http://www.osha.gov/otpca/nrtl/index.html).
    Copies of the Federal Register notice: Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This Federal Register notice, as well as other relevant information,
also is available on OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Previous Chimney-Related Construction Variances

    From 1973 to through 2010, the Agency granted permanent variances
to a number of chimney-related construction companies from the
provisions of the OSHA standards that regulate boatswains' chairs,
personnel platforms, and hoist towers, specifically, paragraph (o)(3)
of 29 CFR 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8),
(c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552.\1\ Several of
these early variances (hereafter, ``the previous variances'') limited
the scope of the variances only to chimneys constructed using jump-form
construction techniques and procedures (see, for example, 38 FR 8545
granted April 3, 1973, and 71 FR 10557 granted March 1, 2006), while
more recently granted chimney-construction variances, limited the scope
of the variances to the construction of tapered chimneys using jump-
form construction techniques and procedures (see, for example, 75 FR
22424; April 28, 2010). In addition, the conditions specified in the
previous variances became somewhat inconsistent over time, and none of
these variances kept pace with updated construction methods used by,
and technological advances taking place in, the chimney-construction
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 38 FR 8545 (April 3, 1973), 44 FR 51352 (August 31,
1979), 50 FR 20145 (May 14, 1985), 50 FR 40627 (October 4, 1985), 52
FR 22552 (June 12, 1987), 68 FR 52961 (September 8, 2003), 70 FR
72659 (December 6, 2005), 71 FR 10557 (March 1, 2006), 72 FR 6002
(February 8, 2007), 74 FR 34789 (July 17, 2009), 74 FR 41742 (August
18, 2009), and 75 FR 22424 (April 28, 2010).

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

B. Grant of the Uniform Chimney-Construction Variance

    In the period from November 2012 through January 2013, 15 employers
involved in chimney construction submitted applications for a new
permanent variance under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (``Variances and
other relief under section 6(d)''). The applicants construct, renovate,
repair, maintain, inspect, and demolish tall chimneys and similar
structures made of concrete, brick, and steel. This work, which occurs
throughout the United States, requires the employers to transport
employees and construction tools and materials to and from elevated
worksites located inside and outside these structures.
    As in the past, the employers sought a permanent variance from
paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452, which regulates the tackle used to
rig a boatswain's chair, as well as paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4),
(c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552, which
regulate personnel platforms and hoist towers. OSHA consolidated these
variance applications into a single application and published the
uniform variance application, along with a request for public comment,
in the Federal Register on March 21, 2013 (78 FR 17432). On October 2,
2013, the Agency granted the permanent variance (hereafter, ``the
uniform variance'') in a notice published in the Federal Register (78
FR 60900). The scope of the uniform variance included both chimneys and
chimney-related structures (such as silos and towers), as well as jump-
form and slip-form construction \2\ techniques and procedures,
regardless of structural configuration. Additionally, the uniform
variance added or revised conditions that improved worker safety,
including: Condition 3 (Definitions), which defines 29 key terms used
in the variance, usually technical terms, for the purpose of
standardizing and clarifying the meaning of these terms; Condition 5
(Hoist Machines), which updates the requirements for the design and use
of hoist machines based on guidance provided by American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) A10.22-2007; and Condition 6 (Methods of
Operation), which expands and clarifies the training requirements for
both the operators of the hoist machine and the employees who ride in
the cage (this condition adopted several provisions of ANSI A10.22-
2007). (See the table and preamble in 78 FR 60900, 60904-60910, for an
extensive description of the differences between the uniform variance
and a previous variance published in 2010.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this notice, OSHA uses the terms ``jump-form
construction'' and ``slip-form construction'' instead of ``jump-form
formwork construction'' and ``slip-form formwork construction,''
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In view of the Agency's history with the variances granted for
chimney-related construction, OSHA determined that it should replace
the previously granted variances (1973 through 2010) with the recently
published uniform variance. In doing so, OSHA believes that the uniform
variance, compared to the outdated previous variances: (1) Provides
more consistency across the conditions specified by the variance,
thereby expediting OSHA's enforcement of the conditions; (2) allows
employers to use updated technology and industry practices; and (3)
increases worker safety.
    In developing the uniform variance, OSHA sent a letter on December
21, 2012, to all employers holding previous chimney-construction
variances (see Ex. OSHA-2013-0025-0001 for a sample letter). The letter
informed them of the process of developing a uniform variance, and of
OSHA's plan to revoke all previous chimney-construction variances once
OSHA published the uniform variance. In response to this letter, 15
chimney-construction employers holding previous variances applied for
the new uniform variance.

II. Multi-State Variances

    Twenty-seven states have safety and health plans approved by OSHA
under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (29
U.S.C. 667) and 29 CFR part 1952 (``Approved State Plans for
Enforcement of State Standards'').\3\ Of these states, 18 states have
standards identical to the Federal OSHA standards. These states are:
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. Accordingly, the
revocation action proposed in this notice would apply to the previous
variances granted in the 18 states that have standards identical to the
Federal OSHA standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ State-Plan programs operated by four states and one
territory (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the
Virgin Islands) limit their occupational safety and health authority
to public-sector (i.e., state and local government) employers only.
Federal OSHA retains authority over private-sector employers in
these states and territory; therefore, private-sector employers in
these states and territory are subject to the previous variances
granted by Federal OSHA, and to the revocation action proposed
herein. Twenty-one states and one territory operate State-Plan
programs that exercise occupational safety and health authority over
both public-sector employers and private-sector employers; these
states and territory are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The
application of this proposed revocation action to these State-Plan
programs would vary depending on several factors described later in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State-Plan programs operated by Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, and
South Carolina either declined to accept the terms of previous
variances or stated that affected employers must apply to the state
program for a state variance prior to initiating chimney construction.
Because these State-Plan programs elected to exercise control over the
variances, this proposed revocation action would not apply to any
chimney-construction variances granted under these State-Plan programs.
    State-Plan programs operated by four states (California, Michigan,
Utah, and Washington) have requirements in their construction standards
for the tackle used to rig a boatswain's chair, personnel platforms,
and hoist towers that differ from the requirements specified by the
Federal OSHA standards. In these cases, only the State-Plan program has
authority to issue variances from these requirements. Therefore, the
proposed revocation action described herein would not apply to any
variances issued by these states involving these requirements.

III. Supplementary Information

    The following table provides information about the previous
variances granted by OSHA between 1973 and 2010 for chimney
construction, and which are subject to the proposed revocation action
described in this notice.\4\ Refer to the Federal Register citation in
the table to obtain detailed information about these previous
variances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the previous variances addressed the
requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452, which regulates
the tackle used to rig a boatswain's chair, and paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR
1926.552, which regulate personnel platforms and hoist towers.

                                       Table 1--Previous Chimney Variances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Variance or         Date        Federal Register     Applied for uniform
    Name of employer  (company)         Docket No.       granted           citation              variance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airtek-Karrena Chimney Corporation             V-79-3     08/31/79  44 FR 51350..........  No
Avalotis Corporation..............      OSHA-2009-005     04/28/10  75 FR 22424..........  Yes
Bowen Engineering Corporation                  V-04-1     O3/01/06  71 FR 10557..........  Yes
 (merged with Mid-Atlantic Boiler
 and Chimney, Inc., formerly
 Alberici-Mid Atlantic, LLC)*.
Calaveras Power Partners, Inc.....     OSHA-2007-0046     07/17/09  74 FR 34789..........  No
Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc........             V-04-1     03/01/06  71 FR 10557..........  Yes
Continental-Heine Chimney Company,            V-73-13     04/03/73  38 FR 8545...........  No
 Inc..
Francis Hankin and Company, Inc...    V-77-12; V-77-6     08/31/79  44 FR 51352..........  No
Gibraltar Chimney International,        OSHA-2007-004     08/18/09  74 FR 41742..........  Yes
 LLC.
Hamon Custodis (formerly Custodis             V-73-13     04/03/73  38 FR 8545...........  Yes
 Construction Co. Inc., then
 Custodis Cuttrell, Inc.)*.
Hoffman, Inc......................      OSHA-2007-004     08/18/09  74 FR 41742..........  Yes
International Chimney Corporation.             V-04-2     12/06/05  70 FR 72659..........  Yes
Karrena-International, LLC........             V-04-2     12/06/05  70 FR 72659..........  Yes
Kiewit Power Constructors Co.***..      OSHA-2007-004     08/18/09  74 FR 41742..........  Yes
Matrix Service, Inc...............     OSHA-2007-0046     07/17/09  74 FR 34789..........  No
Matrix SME, Inc. (formerly Matrix              V-04-2     12/06/05  70 FR 72659..........  Yes
 Service Industrial Contractors,
 Inc.)*.
NAES Power Contractors (formerly               V-02-1     09/08/03  68 FR 52961..........  Yes
 American Boiler & Chimney
 Company)*.
Oak Park Chimney Corporation......             V-02-1     09/08/03  68 FR 52961..........  No
PDM Steel Service Centers             V-77-12; V-77-6     08/31/79  44 FR 51352..........  No
 (formerly Pittsburgh-Des Moines
 Steel Company)*.
Pullman Power, LLC (formerly M. W.            V-73-13     04/03/73  38 FR 8545...........  Yes
 Kellogg Co., then Pullman Power
 Products Corporation)*.
R and P Industrial Chimney Co.,                V-04-1     03/01/06  71 FR 10557..........  Yes
 Inc..
Rust Constructors, Inc. (formerly             V-73-13     04/03/73  38 FR 8545...........  No
 Rust Engineering Company)*.
T. E. Ibberson Company............     OSHA-2007-0046     07/17/09  74 FR 34789..........  Yes
TIC-The Industrial Company........     OSHA-2007-0046     07/17/09  74 FR 34789..........  Yes
Zachry Construction Corporation...     OSHA-2007-0046     07/17/09  74 FR 34789..........  No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The first name is the current name of the company; names in parentheses are, first, the name listed on the
  original variance, followed by any subsequent names.
**Includes a subsequent interim order granted 03/26/07.

IV. Proposed Revocation of Previous Variances

    Based on its review of the record and the findings described in
this Federal Register notice, OSHA determined that the conditions
specified in the uniform variance published on October 2, 2013 (78 FR
60900) provide consistent and technologically sound measures designed
to replace and supersede the previous chimney-construction variances
granted by OSHA prior to 2010. Accordingly, OSHA finds that the uniform
variance, compared to the previous variances: (1) Provides more
consistency across the conditions specified by the variance, thereby
expediting OSHA's enforcement of the conditions; (2) allows employers
to use updated technology and industry practices; and (3) increases
worker safety. Therefore, under the authority granted by 29 CFR
1905.13(a)(2), OSHA is proposing to revoke the previous chimney-
construction variances. Consequently, employers involved in chimney
construction would either have to comply with the requirements of
paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552 or,
if granted a uniform variance, comply with the conditions of that
variance. OSHA granted the uniform variance to the following 15
employers:
     Avalotis Corp; 400 Jones Street, Verona, PA 15147
     Bowen Engineering Corporation (merged with Mid-Atlantic
Boiler & Chimney, Inc., (formerly Alberici Mid-Atlantic, LLC)), 8802 N.
Meridian St. Indianapolis, IN 46260
     Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., 95 Court Street, Portsmouth,
NH 03801
     Gibraltar Chimney International, LLC, 92 Cooper Ave.
Tonawanda, NY 14150
     Hamon Custodis, Inc. (formerly Custodis Construction Co.,
Inc., then Custodis Cuttrell, Inc.), 58 East Main Street, Somerville,
NJ 08876
     Hoffmann, Inc., 6001 49th Street South, Muscatine, IA
52761
     International Chimney Corporation, 55 South Long Street,
Williamsville, NY 14221
     Karrena International Chimney, 57 South Long Street,
Williamsville, NY 14221
     Kiewit Power Constructors Co., 9401 Renner Blvd., Lenexa,
KS 66219
     Matrix SME, Inc. (formerly Matrix Service Industrial
Contractors, Inc.), 1510 Chester Pike, Suite 500, Eddystone, PA 19022
     NAES Power Contractors (formerly American Boiler and
Chimney Company), 167 Anderson Rd., Cranberry Township, PA 16066
     Pullman Power, LLC (formerly M. W. Kellogg Co., then
Pullman Power Products Corporation), 6501 E. Commerce Avenue, Suite
200, Kansas City, MO 64120
     R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc., 244 Industrial
Parkway, Nicholasville, KY 40356
     T. E. Ibberson Company, 828 5th St. South, Hopkins, MN
55343
     TIC-The Industrial Company, 9780 Mt. Pyramid Ct., Suite
100, Englewood, CO 80112
    Eight employers hold previous variances and did not apply for the
uniform variance. These employers are:
     Airtek-Karrena Chimney Corporation, 1776 Heritage Drive,
Quincy, MA 02171
     Calaveras Power Partners, Inc., P. O. Box 241769, San
Antonio, TX 78224
     Continental-Heine Chimney Company, Inc., 127 North
Dearborne Street, Chicago, IL 60602
     Francis Hankin and Company, Inc., 117 Crockford Boulevard,
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, MIR 3B9

     Matrix Service, Inc., 3810 Bakerview Spur, Bellingham, WA
98226
     Oak Park Chimney Corporation, 1800 Des Plaines Avenue,
Forest Park, IL 60130
     PDM Steel Service Centers (formerly Pittsburgh-Des Moines
Steel Company) 3535 East Myrtle Street, Stockton, CA 95205
     Rust Constructors, Inc. (formerly Rust Engineering Co.), 2
Perimeter Park South, Suite 300W, Birmingham, AL 35243
     Zachry Construction Corporation, 527 Logwood, San Antonio
TX 78221
    Under the proposed revocation action, these employers would have to
comply with the requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452 and
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and
(c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552 when engaged in chimney construction. OSHA
would invite these employers, and any other employers seeking an
alternative means of complying with these provisions, to submit
applications for a variance containing conditions that are equivalent
to the conditions specified by the uniform variance.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 28, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-02015 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71349]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-26-000]

East Point Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
East Point Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 26, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at https://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 6, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22702 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14783-14784]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-358-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 20, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets
to be effective May 1, 2007:

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 17
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 18
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 19
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 31
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 32

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5704 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47297-47298]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0019]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 12 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on August 29, 2017. The
exemptions expire on August 29, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On July 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 12 individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (82 FR 35043). The public comment period ended on August 28,
2017, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that

granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the July 27, 2017, Federal
Register notice (82 FR 35043) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chorioretinal scarring, complete
loss of vision, optic nerve atrophy, optic nerve pallor, prosthetic
eye. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed.
Eight of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments
or have had them since childhood. The four individuals that sustained
their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of three to
ten years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40
corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has
sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though
their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for three to 42 years. In the past three
years, two drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were
convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future. Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case
exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver
must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to
the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or
keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Thomas A. Barber (NC)
Nazar B. Bihun (PA)
Patrick J. Conner (OK)
Jay D. Diebel (MI)
Danny G. Goodman, Jr. (TX)
Randy N. Grandfield (VT)
Edgar A. Ideler (IL)
Dennis R. Jones (TX)
Rufus L. Jones (NJ)
Derek J. Savko (MT)
John J. Tilton (NH)
Randy D. VanScoy (IA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (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 prior to being 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: October 2, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21883 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66515-66516]
[DOCID:fr10no08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0005; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-1]

Revision of Class E Airspace; Ruby, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E airspace at Ruby, AK to provide
adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). One SIAP is being amended for
the Ruby Airport. This action revises existing Class E airspace upward
from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at Ruby Airport,
Ruby, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday September 2, 2008, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) to revise Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. above the
surface and from 1,200 ft. above the surface at Ruby, AK (73 FR 51254).
The action was proposed in order to create Class E airspace sufficient
in size to contain aircraft while executing instrument procedures for
the Ruby Airport. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700
ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface in the Ruby Airport area is revised
by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200
ft. transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the
Ruby Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is revised to accommodate
aircraft executing amended instrument procedures, and will be depicted
on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this
rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at the Ruby Airport, Ruby, Alaska.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Ruby Airport and represents the
FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable
airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Ruby, AK [Revised]

Ruby, Ruby Airport, AK
    (Lat. 64[deg]43'38'' N., long. 155[deg]28'11'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Ruby Airport, AK, and 8 miles either
side of the 051[deg] bearing from the Ruby Airport, AK, extending
from the 6.4-mile radius to 20.3 miles northeast of the Ruby
Airport, AK; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within a 70-mile radius of the Ruby Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on October 27, 2008.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-26651 Filed 11-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61529-61535]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25863]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76084; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

October 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 22, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule''). The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) change
certain rebate and volume thresholds applicable to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs'') \4\ for providing liquidity in primary listed securities in
which they are registered as the LMM, (ii) adopt an incremental tiered-
rebate structure applicable to LMMs and to ETP Holders and Market
Makers affiliated with the LMM that provide liquidity in Tape B
securities to the NYSE Arca Book, (iii) increase the fee charged to
LMMs for removing liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book, (iv) revise the
requirements, fees and credits for Tier 1, (v) revise the requirements
for the current Cross Asset Tier, and rename it Cross Asset Tier 1,
(vi) adopt a new pricing tier, Cross Asset Tier 2, (vii) add two new
Step Up Tiers for Tape B Securities, (viii) eliminate obsolete pricing
tiers, and (ix) amend Port Fees. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective October 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' is defined in Rule 1.1(ccc)
to mean a registered Market Maker that is the exclusive Designated
Market Maker in listings for which the Exchange is the primary
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LMM Transaction Credits
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the
structure of the transaction credits it provides to LMMs for providing
displayed liquidity in the NYSE Arca Marketplace \5\ primary listed
securities in which they are registered as the LMM. The Exchange has a
tiered rebate structure that is based on the consolidated average daily
volume (``CADV'') of the security in the previous month. Specifically,
the current rebates are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``NYSE Arca Marketplace'' is defined in Rule 1.1(e)
to mean the electronic securities communications and trading
facility designated by the Board of Directors through which orders
of Users are consolidated for execution and/or display.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $0.0035 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month
greater than 5,000,000 shares
     $0.004 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of
between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 shares
     $0.0045 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of
less than 1,000,000 shares
    The Exchange proposes to lower the credit for the tier requiring a
CADV in the previous month greater than 5,000,000 shares from $0.0035
per share to $0.0033 per share. The Exchange is not proposing any
change to the credits provided for the other two tiers. The Exchange
also proposes to lower the volume threshold for the tier requiring a
CADV in the previous month greater than 5,000,000 million shares from
5,000,000 shares to 3,000,000 shares, and lower the volume threshold
for the tier requiring a CADV in the previous month of between
1,000,000 shares and 5,000,000 to 1,000,000 shares and 3,000,000
shares. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the volume
threshold for the remaining tier.
    As proposed, the transaction credits and volume thresholds would be
as follows:
     $0.0033 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month
greater than 3,000,000 shares
     $0.004 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of
between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 shares
     $0.0045 per share (credit) for orders that provide
displayed liquidity to the Book in securities for which they are
registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of
less than 1,000,000 shares
LMMs and Affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers Incremental
Transaction Credits
    The Exchange proposes to adopt tier-based incremental credits for
orders that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in Tape B
Securities. Specifically, LMMs that are registered as the LMM in Tape B
securities that have a CADV in the previous month of less than 100,000
shares (``Less Active ETP Securities''), and the ETP Holders and Market
Makers affiliated with such LMMs, would receive an additional credit
for orders that provide displayed liquidity to the Book in any Tape B
Securities that trade on the Exchange.\6\ As proposed, the incremental
credits and volume thresholds would be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange defines ``affiliate'' to ``mean any ETP Holder
under 75% common ownership or control of that ETP Holder.'' See Fee
Schedule, NYSE Arca Marketplace: General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An additional credit of $0.0004 per share if an LMM is
registered as the LMM in at least 300 Less Active ETP Securities
     An additional credit of $0.0003 per share if an LMM is
registered as the LMM in at least 200 but less than 300 Less Active ETP
Securities
     An additional credit of $0.0002 per share if an LMM is
registered as the LMM in at least 100 but less than 200 Less Active ETP
Securities
    The number of Less Active ETP Securities for the billing month
would be based on the number of Less Active ETP Securities in which an
LMM is registered as the LMM on the last business day of the previous
month. As noted above, the proposed incremental credits would also
apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with the LMM whose
orders in Tape B Securities provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE
Arca Book.
    For example, a LMM that provides liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in
a security for which the LMM is registered as the LMM which has a CADV
in the previous month of at least 1,000,000 shares would receive a
credit of $0.0045 per share. If that LMM is a Tier 1 firm that is also
registered as an LMM in 250 Less Active ETP Securities, the LMM would
receive an incremental credit of $0.0003 per share under the proposed
new rebate structure, for a total credit of $0.0048 per share.
Additionally, affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers of such LMM that
provide displayed liquidity in Tape B Securities would receive a total
credit of $0.0026 per share, i.e., $0.0023 per share Tier 1 credit for
orders that provide liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book plus $0.0003 per
share for being registered as a LMM in 250 Less Active ETP Securities.
    With this pricing incentive, the Exchange hopes to provide
incentives for increased trading in Less Active ETP Securities for
market participants.
LMM Transaction Fees
    The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share to LMMs
for orders in primary listed securities that remove liquidity from the
NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange proposes to increase this fee to $0.0028
per share.
Tier 1
    Currently, ETP Holders and Market Makers qualify for Tier 1 fees
and

credits by meeting one of two requirements. These participants can
either provide liquidity an average daily share volume per month of
0.70% or more of the US CADV, or (a) provide liquidity an average daily
share volume per month of 0.15% or more of the US CADV and (b) are
affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of
electronic posted executions (including all account types) in Penny
Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least
100,000 contracts, of which at least 25,000 contracts must be for the
account of a market maker. In Tape A and Tape C Securities, ETP Holders
and Market Makers currently receive a credit of $0.0030 per share for
orders that provide liquidity to the Book and pay a fee of $0.0030 per
share for orders that take liquidity from the Book. In Tape B
Securities, ETP Holders and Market Makers receive a credit of $0.0023
per share for orders that provide liquidity to the Book.
    The Exchange proposes to simplify this pricing tier by removing the
second requirement. As proposed, ETP Holders and Market Makers will
qualify for Tier 1 fees and credits if they provide liquidity an
average daily share volume per month of 0.70% or more of the US CADV.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes distinct fees and credits
applicable to Tape A and Tape C Securities. As proposed, ETP Holders
and Market Makers would receive an increased credit of $0.0031 per
share for orders that provide liquidity to the Book in Tape A
Securities and will continue to pay a fee of $0.0030 per share for
orders that take liquidity from the Book in Tape A Securities. ETP
Holders and Market Makers would receive an increased credit of $0.0033
per share for orders that provide liquidity to the Book in Tape C
Securities and would pay a lower fee of $0.0029 per share for orders
that take liquidity from the Book in Tape C Securities. The Exchange is
not proposing any change to the per share credit provided to ETP
Holders and Market Makers in Tape B Securities.
Cross-Asset Tier
    Currently, ETP Holders and Market Makers receive a credit of
$0.0030 per share in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities when such
participants (1) provide liquidity of 0.40% or more of the US CADV per
month, and (2) are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
provides an ADV of electronic posted Customer executions in Penny Pilot
issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.95%
of total Customer equity and ETF option ADV as reported by OCC, or when
such participants (1) provide liquidity of 0.30% or more of the US CADV
per month, (2) are affiliated with an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
provides an ADV of electronic posted Customer executions in all issues
on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 0.80% of
total Customer equity and ETF option ADV as reported by OCC, and (3)
execute an ADV of Retail Orders that provide liquidity during the month
that is 0.10% or more of the US CADV. Under the current tier,
participants receive a credit of $0.0030 per share for providing
liquidity to the order book in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities.
    The Exchange proposes to simplify this pricing tier by removing the
first requirement. As proposed, ETP Holders and Market Makers would
receive a per share credit when such participants (a) provide liquidity
of 0.30% or more of the US CADV per month, (b) are affiliated with an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted
Customer executions in all issues on NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini
options) of at least 0.80% of total Customer equity and ETF option ADV
as reported by OCC, and (c) execute an ADV of Retail Orders that
provide liquidity during the month that is 0.10% or more of the US
CADV. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the amount of the
credit in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities, which will remain at
$0.0030 per share. The Exchange also proposes to rename the current
tier to Cross Asset Tier 1 to distinguish this pricing tier from Cross
Asset Tier 2, which the Exchange is proposing to adopt with this
proposed rule change.
Cross Asset Tier 2
    The Exchange proposes a new pricing tier--Cross Asset Tier 2--for
securities with a per share price above $1.00.
    As proposed, the Cross Asset Tier 2 would apply to ETP Holders and
Market Makers that (a) provide liquidity an average daily volume share
per month of 0.30% or more of the US CADV and (b) are affiliated with
an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that provides an ADV of electronic posted
executions for the account of a market maker in Penny Pilot issues on
NYSE Arca Options (excluding mini options) of at least 90,000
contracts. Such ETP Holders and Market Makers would receive a credit of
$0.0031 per share for orders that provide liquidity to the order book
in Tape A Securities; a credit of $0.0030 per share for providing
liquidity to the order book and a fee of $0.0028 per share for taking
liquidity from the order book in Tape B Securities; and a credit of
$0.0033 per share for providing liquidity to the order book and a fee
of $0.0029 per share for taking liquidity from the order book in Tape C
Securities.
Tape B Tiers
    The Exchange proposes to introduce two new pricing tier levels--
Tape B Tier 1 and Tape B Tier 2--for securities with a per share price
above $1.00.
    As proposed, a new Tape B Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 per share \7\
would be applicable to ETP Holders, including Market Makers, that, on a
daily basis, measured monthly, directly execute providing volume in
Tape B Securities during the billing month (``Tape B Adding ADV'') that
is equal to at least 0.40% of US Tape B CADV over the ETP Holder's
second quarter 2015 Tape B Adding ADV taken as a percentage of Tape B
CADV (``Tape B Baseline % CADV''). For example, if an ETP Holder's Tape
B Baseline % CADV during second quarter 2015 was 0.10%, the ETP Holder
would need a Tape B Adding ADV of at least 0.50% in order to qualify
for the proposed Tape B Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 per share (i.e., 0.10%
Tape B Baseline % CADV plus 0.40% of the US Tape B CADV for the billing
month).\8\ LMMs cannot qualify for the Tape B Tier 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the Basic Rate, ETP Holders receive a credit of
$0.0020 per share for Tape B orders that provide liquidity to the
Book.
    \8\ The Exchange recognizes that a firm that becomes an ETP
Holder or Market Maker after the Baseline Month would have a Tape B
Baseline ADV of zero. In this regard, a new ETP Holder or Market
Maker would need to have a Tape B Adding ADV during the billing
month of no less than 0.40% of US Tape B CADV for the $0.0030 per
share credit to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a new Tape B Tier 2 credit of $0.0028 per share \9\
would be applicable to ETP Holders and Market Makers, that, on a daily
basis, measured monthly, directly execute Tape B Adding ADV that is
equal to at least 0.20% of the US Tape B CADV over the ETP Holder's or
Market Maker's Tape B Baseline % CADV. For example, if an ETP Holder's
Tape B Baseline % CADV during second quarter 2015 was 0.10%, the ETP
Holder would need to have a Tape B Adding ADV of at least 0.30% in
order to qualify for the proposed Tape B Tier 2 credit of $0.0028 per
share (i.e., 0.10% Tape B Baseline % CADV plus 0.20% of the US Tape B
CADV for the billing month).\10\ LMMs cannot qualify for the Tape B
Tier 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under the Basic Rate, ETP Holders receive a credit of
$0.0020 per share for Tape B orders that provide liquidity to the
Book.
    \10\ The Exchange recognizes that a firm that becomes an ETP
Holder or Market Maker after the Baseline Month would have a Tape B
Baseline ADV of zero. In this regard, a new ETP Holder or Market
Maker would need to have a Tape B Adding ADV during the billing
month of no less than 0.200% of US Tape B CADV for the $0.0028 per
share credit to apply.

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

Elimination of Obsolete Pricing
    The Fee Schedule currently includes several pricing tiers that have
not encouraged ETP Holders and Market Makers to increase their activity
to qualify for the tiers as significantly as the Exchange anticipated
they would. These tiers are as follows: (i) Step Up Tier 1, (ii) Step
Up Tier 2, (iii) Step Up Tier 3, (iv) Tape B Step Up Tier, (v) Tape C
Step Up Tier, (vi) Tape C Step Up Tier 2, and (vii) Routable Order
Tier. The Exchange proposes to remove these pricing tiers from the Fee
Schedule as well as any related cross references.
Port Fees
    The Exchange currently makes ports available that provide
connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (i.e., ports for entry
of orders and/or quotes (``order/quote entry ports'')) and charges $200
per port per month for users of 1-5 ports, and $500 per port per month
for users of 6 or more ports.\11\ The Fee Schedule currently provides
that no fees apply to ports in the backup datacenter that are not
utilized during the relevant month. The Fee Schedule further provides
that no fees apply to ports in the backup datacenter that are utilized
when the primary datacenter is unavailable but that the fees would
apply if a port in the backup datacenter is utilized when the primary
datacenter is available. The Exchange also currently makes ports
available for drop copies and charges $500 per port per month.\12\ The
Fee Schedule provides that no fees apply to ports in the backup
datacenter if configured such that it is duplicative of another drop
copy port of the same user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Fee Schedule provides that users of the Exchange's Risk
Management Gateway service are not charged for order/quote entry
ports if such ports are designated as being used for RMG purposes.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68227 (November 14, 2012),
77 FR 69679 (November 20, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-123).
    \12\ Only one fee per drop copy port applies, even if receiving
drop copies from multiple order/quote entry ports and/or from NYSE
Arca Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to standardize the port fee and charge $550
per port per month, regardless of the number of users and whether the
port is used for order/quote entry or for drop copies. The Exchange
believes standardizing the port fees will permit the Exchange to
offset, in part, its infrastructure costs associated with making such
ports available. The proposed change would also encourage users to
become more efficient with their usage of the ports thereby resulting
in a corresponding increase in the efficiency that the Exchange would
be able to realize with respect to managing its own infrastructure. In
this regard, as users decrease the number of ports that they utilize,
the Exchange would similarly be able to decrease the amount of its
hardware that it is required to support to interface with such ports.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP
Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

LMM Transaction Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposed new incremental tiered-rebates
will provide a further incentive for LMMs to quote and trade a greater
number of securities on the Exchange and will generally allow the
Exchange and LMMs to better compete for order flow and thus enhance
competition. Specifically, the Exchange believes that its proposal,
which among other things, adjusts the CADV and credits for LMMs based
on the CADV of the security in primary listed securities in which they
are registered as the LMM, is reasonable as it is still the highest
credit in securities with a CADV greater than 3,000,000 shares. The
Exchange also believes that the rebate for providing displayed
liquidity is equitable because it would uniformly apply to all LMMs.
LMMs and Affiliated ETP Holders and Market Makers Incremental
Transaction Credits
    The proposed fee change is intended to encourage ETP Holders to
promote price discovery and market quality in Less Active ETP
Securities for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange
believes the proposed credits are reasonable and appropriate in that
they are based on the amount of business transacted on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee change is similar to market
quality incentive programs already in place on other markets, such as
the Qualified Market Maker incentive on the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ''), which requires a member on that exchange to provide
meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery
by quoting at the National Best Bid and Offer in a large number of
securities. In return, NASDAQ provides such member with an incremental
rebate.\15\ NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') also provides enhanced
credits to Market Makers on certain volumes based on an affiliate's
activity. Specifically, PHLX offers a tiered Customer Rebate Program
that qualifies either a Specialist or Market Maker or its affiliate
under Common Ownership \16\ to an additional rebate provided the
Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker
Cap.\17\ The Exchange believes that providing increased credits to ETP
Holders and Market Makers that are affiliated with a LMM that add
liquidity in Tape B securities to the Exchange is reasonable because
the Exchange believes that by providing increased rebates to affiliated
ETP Holders and Market Makers of a LMM, more LMMs will register to
quote and trade in Less Active ETP Securities. The Exchange believes
the proposed incremental credit for adding liquidity is also reasonable
because it will encourage liquidity and competition in Tape B
securities quoted and traded on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee change will incentivize LMMs to register
as an LMM in Less Active ETP Securities and thus, add more liquidity in
these and other Tape B Securities to the benefit of all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NASDAQ Rule 7014.
    \16\ The term ``Common Ownership'' is defined as meaning
``members or member organizations under 75% common ownership or
control.'' See PHLX fee schedule, at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
    \17\ Id. (Section II, Monthly Market Maker Cap). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70969 (December 3, 2013), 78 FR
73906 (December 9, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed incremental credits are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all
ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with a LMM on an equal basis
and provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed incremental rebate is not unfairly
discriminatory because it is consistent with the market quality and

competitiveness benefits associated with the proposed fee program and
because the magnitude of the additional rebate is not unreasonably high
in comparison to the rebate paid with respect to other displayed
liquidity-providing orders. The Exchange does not believe that it is
unfairly discriminatory to offer increased rebates to LMMs as LMMs are
subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting
requirements) that other market participants are not. When PHLX adopted
its proposal to provide enhanced credits, it noted its belief that the
additional rebate it provides was equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because, among other things, Specialists and Market
Makers ``have burdensome quoting obligations,'' to the market that
other market participants do not; are subject to higher transaction
costs and incur higher costs related to market making activities; and
``also serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order
interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace.'' \18\ PHLX
further noted that the ``proposed differentiation as between
Specialists and Market Makers as compared to other market participants
recognizes the differing contributions made to the trading environment
on the Exchange by these market participants.'' The Exchange also
believes that allowing ETP Holders to receive enhanced credits based on
activities of their affiliates is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes that ETP Holders
affiliated with LMMs may qualify to earn enhanced credits in
recognition of their shared economic interest, which includes the
heightened obligations and costs imposed on LMMs. ETP Holders
unaffiliated with LMMs do not share the same type of economic
interests. Further, ETP Holders not affiliated with a LMM have an
opportunity to establish such affiliation by several means, including
but not limited to, a business combination or the establishment of
their own market making operation, which each unaffiliated firm has the
potential to establish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70969 (December 3,
2013), 78 FR 73906 (December 9, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-114).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LMM Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the fee
charged to LMMs for orders in primary listed securities that remove
liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book as this fee is same as the fee
charged by the Exchange to Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 ETP Holders and
Market Makers that take liquidity in Tape B securities.\19\ In
addition, the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply uniformly to all similarly
situated LMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See NYSE Arca Marketplace: Trade Related Fees and Credits,
Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3, Tape B Securities at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/NYSE_Arca_Marketplace_Fees.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier 1
    The Exchange believes that the amendments to Tier 1 is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
amendment would apply uniformly to all similarly situated ETP Holders
and Market Makers that send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes providing increased credits and charging lower fees for orders
in Tape A and Tape C Securities will incentivize ETP Holders to
increase the orders sent to the Exchange and therefore provide
liquidity that supports the quality of price discovery and promotes
market transparency. The Exchange believes that by recalibrating the
fees for taking liquidity and credits for providing liquidity will
attract additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and benefiting
investors generally. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to
remove one of the two current requirements for ETP Holders and Market
Makers to qualify for Tier 1 fees and credits. The proposed change will
simplify the tier by removing a multi-prong requirement. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the requirement would be eliminated entirely--no
ETP Holders would remain able to qualify for the eliminated prong.
Cross Asset Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the amendments to the Cross Asset Tier
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
proposed amendment would continue to directly relate to the activity of
an ETP Holder and the activity of an affiliated OTP Holder or OTP Firm
on NYSE Arca Options, thereby encouraging increased trading activity on
both the NYSE Arca equity and option markets. In this regard, the
proposal is designed to bring additional posted order flow to NYSE Arca
Options, so as to provide additional opportunities for all OTP Holders
and OTP Firms to trade on NYSE Arca Options. Furthermore, similar to
the revised Cross Asset Tier, the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
includes a credit for OTP Holders and OTP Firms that is based on both
equity and options volume. Additionally, ETP Holders that are not
affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm are still
eligible for fees and credits by means other than the Cross Asset Tier.
NASDAQ similarly charges certain fees based on both equity and options
volume.\20\ Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to remove
one of the two current requirements for ETP Holders and Market Makers
to qualify for Cross Asset Tier fees and credits as its removal would
simplify the pricing tier. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
requirement would be eliminated entirely--no ETP Holders would remain
able to qualify for the eliminated prong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Cross Asset Tier 2 is reasonable
and equitably allocated because it would apply to ETP Holders and
Market Makers that provide liquidity to the Exchange and is designed to
incentivize these market participants to increase the orders sent
directly to the Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports
the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency. The
Exchange believes the new Cross Asset Tier 2 is equitable because it
would be available to all similarly situated ETP Holders and Market
Makers on an equal basis and would provide credits that are reasonably
related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with
higher volumes. The Exchange further believes that the proposed Cross
Asset Tier 2 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange has previously implemented cross asset tiers,
including the current Cross Asset Tier.
Tape B Tiers
    The Exchange believes the proposed Tape B Tiers are reasonable and
equitably allocated because they apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers
that provide liquidity to the Exchange and are designed to incentivize
these market participants to increase the orders sent directly to the
Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of
price discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange believes
the new Tape B Tiers are equitable because they are open to all
similarly situated ETP Holders and Market Makers on an equal basis and
provide credits that are reasonably related to the value of an
exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The Exchange
further believes

that the proposed Tape B Tier 1 and Tape B Tier 2 are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange has
previously implemented multiple step up tiers, including Step Up Tier
1, Step Up Tier 2 and Step Up Tier 3.
Elimination of Obsolete Pricing
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to eliminate the
obsolete pricing tiers from the Fee Schedule because ETP Holders have
not increased their activity to qualify for these tiers as
significantly as the Exchange anticipated they would. The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
eliminate these tiers because they would be eliminated entirely--no ETP
Holders would remain able to qualify for the eliminated tiers. This
aspect of the proposed change would therefore result in a more
streamlined Fee Schedule, including with respect to removal of related
cross references.
Port Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend the port fees
constitutes an equitable allocation of fees because all similarly
situated ETP Holders and other market participants would be charged the
same amount. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the
monthly rates is reasonable because the proposed port fees are expected
to permit the Exchange to offset, in part, its infrastructure costs
associated with making such ports available, including costs based on
gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to
gateway development, quality assurance, and support. In this regard,
the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are competitive with those
charged by other exchanges.\21\ The proposed change is also reasonable
because the proposed per port rates would encourage users to become
more efficient with, and reduce the number of ports used, thereby
resulting in a corresponding increase in the efficiency that the
Exchange would be able to realize with respect to managing its own
infrastructure.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For example, the charge on the NASDAQ for a FIX Trading
Port is $550 per port per month. See NASDAQ Rule 7015. A separate
charge for Pre-Trade Risk Management ports also is applicable, which
ranges from $400 to $600 and is capped at $25,000 per firm per
month. See NASDAQ Rule 7016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\22\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage increased participation by LMMs in the trading
of ETP securities generally and Less Active ETP Securities, in
particular. The proposed change would also encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with LMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposal to amend the requirements to qualify for Tier
1 and the Cross Asset Tier will not place an undue burden on
competition because both pricing tiers would remain available for all
ETP Holders to satisfy, except, with respect to the Cross Asset Tier
which would not be available for those ETP Holders that are not
affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm. ETP
Holders that are not affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or
OTP Firm are eligible for fees and credits by others means than the
Cross Asset Tier. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to
adopt the Tape B Tiers will encourage competition by attracting
additional liquidity to the Exchange, which will make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution and
price discovery. An ETP Holder could qualify for the proposed new Tape
B Tiers by providing sufficient adding liquidity to satisfy the
applicable proposed volume requirements. The Exchange also notes that
the proposed Tape B Tiers would be similar to existing pricing tiers
and applicable credits on the Exchange. Also, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of ETP Holders
or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. In this regard, the Exchange notes
that existing pricing tiers of other exchanges similarly provide for
credits for market participants that provide certain levels of
liquidity on those exchanges.\23\ In general, ETP Holders impacted by
the proposed change may readily adjust their trading behavior to
maintain or increase their credits or decrease their fees in a
favorable manner, and will therefore not be disadvantaged in their
ability to compete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., the ``Investor Support Program'' under NASDAQ
Rule 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The removal of obsolete pricing tiers is not competitive in nature,
but would result in a more streamlined Fee Schedule.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to the port fees sets the
fees that are competitive with those charges by other exchanges,\24\
and would encourage users to become more efficient with, and reduce the
number of ports used, thereby resulting in a corresponding increase in
the efficiency of the ports utilized by users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
this proposal promotes a competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \25\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \26\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \27\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-87 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-87. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-87 and should be submitted on or before
November 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25863 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P