[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49275-49277]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0427; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01370-T;
Amendment 39-22488; AD 2023-13-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports where the passenger door external handle
mechanism was not retrieving its normal, flush position when the door
was being closed. This AD requires a one-time cleaning and lubrication
of the external door handle mechanism of each affected door, and limits
the installation of affected parts, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 5,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0427; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0427.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113,
A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N,
A319-171N, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232,
A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-
273N, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-
231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N,
A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2023 (88 FR
14298). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0213R1, dated November 8,
2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0213R1) (also referred to as
the MCAI). The MCAI states one operator has reported two cases of a
passenger/flight crew door external handle flap remained stuck in an
intermediate or fully pushed position (not flush with the door skin) on
two recently delivered Model A320 series airplanes after the door was
opened from outside. With the external handle flap in this intermediate
position, in one of the reported cases, the operator was not able to
open the door normally from inside. Subsequent investigation determined
that on the production line of one door supplier, corrosion protection
compound (CPC) was inadvertently applied to the movable parts of the
mechanism during production. The CPC, when applied to these parts leads
to a sticky effect and prevents the passenger door external handle flap
from moving to the closed position, which is flush with the fuselage
skin.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time cleaning and

lubrication of the external door handle mechanism of each affected
door, and to limit the installation of affected parts, as specified in
EASA AD 2022-0213R1. The FAA is issuing this AD to address external
door handle mechanisms coated with CPC preventing the passenger door
external handle flap from moving to the closed position, which if not
addressed, could inhibit opening the door from the inside, or allow the
door to open, automatically disarming the slide/raft, which would
result in its non-automatic deployment. Both scenarios could delay a
safe evacuation of airplane occupants during an emergency.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0427.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (DAL) and
United Airlines (UAL). The following presents the comments received on
the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Add an Exception To Allow Maintenance Records Review

    DAL requested that the NPRM be revised to add an exception to allow
a records review by DAL Engineering to determine the airplanes with
affected passenger doors and to identify if any external control handle
lubrication had already been accomplished prior to the inspection by
DAL maintenance. DAL stated that its maintenance department is not
typically responsible for performing records review as part of their
responsibilities, as this is a function of the engineering department.
    The FAA disagrees with adding an exception, since accomplishment of
Paragraph 5.6, Steps (1) and (2) do not require review of maintenance
records nor do they require maintenance personnel to conduct the review
if DAL decides to use maintenance records to accomplish the AD actions
as the DAL comment suggests. The FAA agrees that a review of the
airplane maintenance records by engineering is acceptable to determine
if an aircraft has an affected door or to verify control handle
lubrication has already been accomplished. The FAA has not changed this
AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Applicability To Include Affected Doors

    UAL requested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be revised to
include affected passenger doors to address part interchangeability.
UAL stated that inclusion of the affected passenger door part numbers
will help operators to identify the potential installation of the
impacted doors within their fleet using the Illustrated Parts Catalog
(IPC) for configuration control.
    The FAA disagrees with the need to add door part numbers to this
AD. The service information specified in EASA AD 2022-0213R1 identifies
the suspect passenger doors by serial numbers. Further, the FAA agrees
that the movement of doors within an operator's fleet is possible so
this AD, as written, addresses the issue of rotability in two ways.
First, the applicability in paragraph (c) of this AD includes all
Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. Second,
the requirements of this AD include a parts installation limitation, as
specified in EASA AD 2022-0213R1. Therefore, the FAA has not changed
this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0213R1 specifies procedures for cleaning and
lubricating the movable parts of the external passenger door handle
mechanism of affected doors. EASA AD 2022-0213R1 also limits the
installation of affected parts. This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,864 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product           Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 4 work-hours x $85 per hour              $50   Up to $390...........  Up to $726,960.
 = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-13-03 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22488; Docket No. FAA-2023-0427;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01370-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 5,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, and A318-122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115,
A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N, and A319-171N
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231,
A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N,
A320-272N, and A320-273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212,
A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N,
A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N,
and A321-272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports where the passenger door
external handle mechanism was not allowing the flap handle to return
to its normal, flush position when the door was being closed.
Subsequent investigation concluded corrosion protection compound
(CPC) was inadvertently applied to the movable parts of the
mechanism during production. The CPC prevents the handle flap from
moving to the closed position, flush with the fuselage skin. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could inhibit opening the door
from the inside, or allow the door to open, automatically disarming
the slide/raft, which would result in its non-automatic deployment.
Both scenarios could delay a safe evacuation of airplane occupants
during an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0213R1, dated November 8, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0213R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0213R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0213R1 refers to November 3, 2022 (the
effective of EASA AD 2022-0213, dated October 20, 2022), this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0213R1.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible
Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Validation Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2022-0213R1 contains paragraphs that are labeled as RC,
the instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under an
RC paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are not
identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not identified as RC
may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the instructions identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to instructions identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling,
Aerospace Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0213R1,
dated November 8, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0213R1, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 30, 2023.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16095 Filed 7-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 67410-67414]
[DOCID:fr21no06-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54752; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto, To Modify Certain Fees for Listing on the Nasdaq Stock Market
and To Make Available Products and Services Intended To Assist
Companies With Their Disclosure and Regulatory Obligations, Shareholder
Communications, and Other Corporate Objectives

 November 14, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 2, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On October 30, 2006, Nasdaq
filed Amendment No. 1. Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 2 on October 31,
2006. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change, as amended, 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

    Nasdaq proposes to: (i) Modify annual fees for Nasdaq Global Market
and Nasdaq Capital Market issuers; (ii) modify entry fees for Nasdaq
Capital Market issuers; (iii) modify the listing of additional shares
(``LAS'') fee for domestic issuers and establish an LAS fee for foreign
issuers; (iv) modify fees for issuers seeking written interpretations
of Nasdaq's listing rules; and (v) adopt other fee changes related to
companies listing on and transferring between Nasdaq markets. The text
of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and at http://www.nasdaq.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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes several modifications to its listing and other
issuer fees as set forth below.
(i) Capital Market Entry Fee Changes
    Nasdaq proposes to modify the entry fees payable by issuers listing
on the Nasdaq Capital Market.\3\ This fee is assessed on the date of
entry and is calculated based on total shares outstanding. Currently,
the minimum entry fee payable by a Nasdaq Capital Market issuer is
$25,000 for listing up to five million shares of securities and the
maximum fee is $50,000 for listing over 15 million shares. Pursuant to
the proposed rule change, the minimum entry fee would increase to
$50,000 for an issuer listing up to 15 million shares and the maximum
fee would increase to $75,000 for an issuer listing over 15 million
shares. In determining these fees, Nasdaq considered the fees charged
by other markets and notes that the proposed Capital Market entry fees
remain substantially below those of the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca, and, are comparable to the fees charged by
the American Stock Exchange (``Amex'').\4\ Nasdaq also considered the
time and effort that its staff devotes to the review and consideration
of the typical Capital Market application. Finally, Nasdaq considered
recent enhancements to its trading markets that facilitate initial
public offerings, such as the Nasdaq IPO

Cross. The IPO Cross is designed to ensure a more orderly market for
new issues, as well as to provide fair executions for investors through
an open and transparent process in which investors have the ability to
enter orders and participate in price discovery, creating a single
price for IPOs based on supply and demand. Nasdaq believes that this
enhanced opening process increases the value of a Nasdaq listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Nasdaq entry fees for Capital Market issuers were last
increased in 2003. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47111
(December 31, 2002), 68 FR 822 (January 7, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-183).
    \4\ The proposed Capital Market entry fees range from $15,000
below to $5,000 higher than the comparable Amex fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Listing of Additional Shares Fee Changes
    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify the fees for listing
additional shares by domestic companies listed on the Nasdaq Global
Market or the Nasdaq Capital Market.\5\ Under the existing rule, Nasdaq
issuers are assessed a quarterly fee of $2,500 or $0.01 per additional
share, whichever is higher, up to an annual maximum of $45,000 per
issuer. Under the proposed rule, the minimum quarterly fee would
increase to $5,000 and the maximum fee would increase to $65,000 per
year. The rule would continue to provide that no fee is charged for
issuances of up to 49,999 additional shares per quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ LAS fees were last increased in 2003. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 48631 (October 15, 2003), 68 FR 60426
(October 22, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-127).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to introduce an LAS fee in the amount
of $5,000 for non-U.S. companies that list additional shares or
additional shares underlying ADRs in a given fiscal year. Historically,
these companies were not charged an LAS fee. Nasdaq will calculate and
assess this fee annually based on the change in the issuer's total
shares outstanding as reported on its annual reports filed with the
SEC. As with domestic issuers, however, there will be no fee for
issuances of up to 49,999 additional shares per year.
    The LAS fee is designed, in part, to offset the costs associated
with reviewing the transactions that give rise to the issuance of
shares for compliance with Nasdaq's requirements. In that regard,
Nasdaq staff has devoted increased time to counseling companies
regarding the application of those rules and has developed a
comprehensive Web site providing guidance to companies, including
frequently asked questions, summaries of Nasdaq interpretive positions,
and rulings by the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council. The
revised LAS fees will allow Nasdaq to continue these efforts. In
addition, the proposed LAS fee on non-U.S. companies will allocate
costs attributable to those companies in a more equitable manner.
Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to maintain a lower LAS fee for non-
U.S. companies because the Nasdaq listing is often not the primary
listing for such companies.
(iii) Annual Fee Changes
    Nasdaq proposes to modify the annual fees payable by domestic and
foreign issuers listed on the Nasdaq Global Market (including the
Nasdaq Global Select Market) or the Nasdaq Capital Market.\6\ Currently
issuers on each market are required to pay an annual fee based on the
total number of shares outstanding. Under the proposed rule change,
annual fees on the Nasdaq Global Market would increase from a minimum
of $24,500 and a maximum of $75,000 to a minimum of $30,000 and a
maximum of $95,000. In addition, annual fees on the Nasdaq Capital
Market would increase from a minimum of $17,500 and a maximum of
$21,000 to a $27,500 flat fee for any amount of shares outstanding.
Annual fees for American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs'') listed on the
Capital Market and ADRs and Closed End Funds on the Global Market would
remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nasdaq annual fees were last increased in 2005. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50838 (December 10, 2004), 69 FR
75578 (December 17, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq competes with several other domestic and international stock
markets for company listings. Nasdaq considered the fees charged by
these other markets in determining the new fees.\7\ Nasdaq also
considered the substantial resources it dedicates to its regulatory
programs, ensuring that they are world-class. The Nasdaq Listing
Qualifications Department monitors companies for compliance with the
continued listing standards. In that regard, Listing Qualifications
staff reviews all SEC filings made by Nasdaq-listed companies,
including proxies and Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K. This review is to
assure that the issuer remains compliant with Nasdaq's financial and
qualitative requirements, including all of Nasdaq's corporate
governance listing standards. These reviews are facilitated by the use
of a sophisticated, web-based compliance monitoring tool, which Nasdaq
continuously enhances. In addition, Nasdaq has taken steps to enhance
the transparency available to investors and potential investors
surrounding its review of deficient companies and has enhanced its Web
site to provide guidance to Nasdaq-listed companies. The Nasdaq
MarketWatch Department maintains an orderly marketplace and a level
playing field for market participants, investors and the general
public. MarketWatch staff provides real-time surveillance of price and
volume information reported by market participants, and reviews
abnormal activity to determine if action is required to maintain a fair
market. This surveillance is supported by real-time, automated
detection systems, newsgathering resources, and contacts at listed
companies and trading firms. Nasdaq companies and their investors also
benefit by Nasdaq having an independent regulator in NASD, which
enhances confidence in the trading of their securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed $27,500 Capital Market annual fee compares to
fees of $30,000--$85,000 on NYSE Arca and from $16,500--$34,000 on
Amex. Each of these markets has listing standards comparable to
those applicable to Capital Market companies. The proposed annual
fees for the Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets range from
$30,000 to $95,000, compared to fees on the NYSE that range from
$38,000 to $500,000. For any amount of shares outstanding, Nasdaq's
fees would be less than those of the NYSE, and would be more than
$400,000 less for some Global and Global Select Market companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting fees, Nasdaq also considered enhancements made to its
trading systems since it last raised fees. For example, Nasdaq has
implemented an ``Opening Cross'' and a ``Closing Cross,'' which
determine a single price for the opening and closing, respectively,
thereby helping issuers and investors by increasing liquidity and
improving price discovery at these critical times of the day. Nasdaq
also plans to launch Intraday Crosses and a Post-Close Cross and is in
the final stages of launching its ``Single Book'' platform, which will
further enhance liquidity for Nasdaq-listed companies. By contributing
to increased liquidity, these systems help lower the cost of capital
for Nasdaq-listed companies and their investors. While most of the
costs of these systems are borne by their users, it is appropriate to
consider the costs of developing and running these systems in
establishing listing fees because listed companies and their investors
benefit from the existence of these systems and because the systems
enhance the value of a Nasdaq listing.
    In addition, Nasdaq has announced that it will make available
products and services intended to assist companies with their
disclosure and regulatory obligations, shareholder communications, and
other corporate objectives. Specifically, Nasdaq intends to provide
enhancements to NASDAQ Online and the Market Intelligence Desk that
will provide companies with additional information and analysis to help
manage their investor relationship programs and understand movements in
the market for their securities. In addition, Nasdaq intends to offer
companies a service that converts their annual report and proxy
material into a

dynamic, online document for use by current and potential shareholders.
Nasdaq also intends to offer companies a customized report to help
analyze their exposure to securities litigation and, for those
companies that choose to participate, peer data on the size, structure
and cost of director and officer insurance programs. Finally, Nasdaq
plans to offer the following services: four audio webcasts, four press
releases, and four Form 8-K filings.\8\ Of course these services cannot
satisfy all of a typical company's disclosure and compliance
requirements, but using these services a company could, for example,
announce their earnings each quarter to investors in a press release,
file that press release on a Form 8-K, and have an audio webcast to
discuss the quarter's results. Thus, Nasdaq believes that these
services can assist companies in their disclosure requirements and will
allow investors better access to company information. Nasdaq believes
that all of these enhancements and services will assist companies in
fulfilling their responsibilities as public companies, facilitate their
investor relations and visibility goals, allow investors better access
to company information and, while incidental to the listing, will
differentiate a Nasdaq listing. Moreover, Nasdaq notes that these
services are consistent with services that exchanges have long made
available to their listed companies, which may or may not be used by
those companies.\9\ While not every company will use every service,
Nasdaq believes there will be something of value to all companies.
Further, given that Nasdaq's listing fees are generally below those of
other markets, every company will receive significant value for its
listing fee in comparison to a listing on other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Audio webcasts are encoded audio streams that are
distributed via internet compliant file formats. Press releases,
limited to 500 words, would be distributed over the PrimeZone U.S.
circuit, which includes distribution to all major financial and news
organizations. Companies will be able to file Forms 8-K with the
Commission via the Commission's EDGAR system. The services described
are what Nasdaq intends to offer during 2007. Nasdaq also plans to
offer these or similar services on an ongoing basis, but will
evaluate companies' usage of the services and explore other
opportunities for services for listed companies, and may adjust the
mix of products and services accordingly.
    \9\ For example, an exchange may hold an investor conference at
which a company can elect to present information, or can choose not
to do so. Another exchange may make a market opening ceremony
available, of which some issuers may take advantage and others do
not. Exchanges make reports available to their listed companies;
some companies use those reports, whereas other companies instead
obtain similar reports from third parties. Similarly, Nasdaq
understands that other markets have made available investor
disclosure services, such as webcasts, for their listed companies in
recent years, which some companies have elected not to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Fees for Written Interpretations
    Under Nasdaq Rule 4550, an issuer considering a specific action or
transaction can request an interpretation from Nasdaq as to how
Nasdaq's rules apply to the proposed action or transaction. This
service is provided for a non-refundable fee of $2,000, and the process
generally takes four weeks. Alternatively, an issuer may elect to pay a
non-refundable fee of $10,000 to receive an expedited response, which
will be provided by a specific date that is less than four weeks but at
least one week after the date staff receives all information necessary
to respond to the request.
    Under the proposed rule, the non-refundable fee for a written
interpretation under the regular service would increase from $2,000 to
$5,000 and the fee for expedited service would increase from $10,000 to
$15,000. The process for reviewing written interpretations was
established in 2003 and fees have not been increased since that
date.\10\ Since that time, many of the interpretative issues raised by
this process have become more complex and taken an increasing amount of
staff time, due in part to an increased focus on corporate governance,
executive compensation issues and new SEC requirements regarding board
composition and other matters. Given these changes, Nasdaq believes the
fee increase is appropriate to support the ongoing cost of providing
this service to issuers and to allocate that cost to those companies
using this service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48450 (September 4,
2003), 68 FR 53770 (September 12, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 4550 to clarify that an
issuer that has been suspended or delisted, but where review of that
decision is pending, is eligible to request a written interpretation
upon payment of the applicable fee.
(v) Other Fee Changes and Waivers
    Nasdaq also proposes to adopt two new fee waivers and eliminate the
entry fee for most companies transferring between the Nasdaq Capital
Market and the Nasdaq Global Market. First, Nasdaq is proposing to
adopt new Interpretive Material to clarify that, in the case where a
Nasdaq-listed company is acquired by a non-Nasdaq company and the
surviving entity of the merger lists on the Nasdaq Global Market or the
Nasdaq Capital Market, the company would receive a pro-rated waiver of
the annual fee for the period of time following the merger. Because the
newly listing company would also be assessed an annual fee for that
period, Nasdaq believes that it is equitable to provide this waiver.
    Second, Nasdaq proposes to waive the entry fee if a non-listed
company acquires a company listed on another market, and, in connection
with the acquisition, the surviving entity lists on Nasdaq. Nasdaq
believes that this situation is comparable to a company switching from
another exchange, for which Nasdaq waives the entry fee. Although these
companies would be reviewed for compliance with Nasdaq listing
standards in the same manner as any other company applying for listing
on Nasdaq, Nasdaq believes that, on average, the review of such an
issuer is less likely to involve time-consuming regulatory issues than
the typical application from a company conducting an initial public
offering or transferring from the over-the-counter market.
    Third, the proposed rule change would eliminate the entry fee for
most companies transferring between the Nasdaq Capital Market and the
Nasdaq Global Market. The Global Market entry fee would not be
applicable to a transfer from the Capital Market to the Global Market,
except if a company that qualified for the Global Market chose to
initially list after January 1, 2007, on the Capital Market instead. In
this limited case, when the company seeks to transfer, Nasdaq will
charge the company the difference between the Global Market Fee in
effect at the time of the transfer and the Capital Market fee
previously paid. Nasdaq believes the waiver of the entry fee is
appropriate because these companies are already subject to Nasdaq's
regulation and Nasdaq's qualitative listing requirements. As such,
while Nasdaq conducts a complete review of all applicants, Nasdaq's
experience is that the review of a company that is already listed on
Nasdaq will generally take less time and effort than the application of
an unlisted issuer. Nasdaq also notes that the waiver will allow Nasdaq
to better compete with other markets for listings. In that regard, NYSE
Group recently adopted a fee waiver for companies transferring between
NYSE Arca and NYSE.\11\ The proposed waiver is, in part, a response to
that fee structure, intended to incent companies to initially list and
remain listed on Nasdaq, rather than seek a listing

elsewhere, thereby promoting competition between Nasdaq and other
exchange markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54223 (July 26,
2006), 71 FR 43833 (August 2, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(vi) Implementation
    The new annual fee schedule would be effective January 1, 2007. The
new LAS fee schedule for domestic issuers would be effective for
issuers starting with fiscal years beginning on or after January 1,
2007. Nasdaq will establish the initial number of shares for the LAS
fee for non-U.S. issuers based on an issuer's first annual filing after
January 1, 2007. Companies will be assessed the fee for the increase in
the number of shares based on the subsequent annual filing. The entry
fee changes would be effective upon approval of the proposed rule
change by the Commission. However, issuers that have submitted a
listing application to the Nasdaq Capital Market and paid the
applicable application fee prior to the approval of the proposed rule
change would be charged an entry fee based on the existing fee schedule
and would not be subject to the change in entry fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular. Section 6(b)(4) requires
that Nasdaq's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. As described above, the proposed rule
change will benefit issuers and investors by providing an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees and charges among issuers listed on
Nasdaq and allow Nasdaq to continue to enhance the services provided to
issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In that regard, Nasdaq notes
that the proposed fees are generally lower than the fees charged by
other U.S. marketplaces for listing and are appropriate in light of the
trading system enhancements Nasdaq has made and the regulatory
oversight that Nasdaq provides.
    The proposed fees are also justified because of the numerous
additional services that Nasdaq provides and plans to provide to listed
companies. Nasdaq believes that by offering additional services to
listed companies Nasdaq will differentiate itself, thereby enhancing
competition among marketplaces, both domestically and globally, by
increasing the value of a Nasdaq listing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54155 (July 14,
2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001) where the
Commission noted that Nasdaq operates in a competitive global
exchange marketplace for listings, financial products, and market
services and competes in such an environment with other market
centers, including national securities exchanges, ECNs, and other
alternative trading systems, for the privilege of providing market
and listing services to broker-dealers and issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also believes that offering services to listed companies
will enhance competition among the providers of those services. The
press release and Edgar-filing services that are being provided do not
nearly satisfy listed-companies' needs for these services. As such,
companies will still need to purchase these services from service
providers and these service providers will continue to compete for this
business based on price, reliability, and quality of services. To the
extent that Nasdaq becomes a meaningful competitor to the existing
providers of such services, listed companies will benefit from enhanced
competition for their business.
    With respect to press-release distribution, in particular, Nasdaq
notes that its participation can only increase competition. Nasdaq
estimates that two service providers, PR Newswire and Business Wire,
distribute approximately 85% to 90% of press releases for public
companies listed on U.S. exchanges.\15\ By contrast, PrimeZone Media
Network, the Nasdaq-owned company which will provide the services
described, distributes fewer than 5% of press releases for public
companies listed on U.S. exchanges. In fact, if all Nasdaq companies
make use of all four press releases proposed to be offered to them,
Nasdaq estimates that PR Newswire and Business Wire combined will still
distribute more than 80% of press releases for public companies listed
on U.S. exchanges. Given this landscape, it is apparent that the
services Nasdaq is offering companies could only enhance competition,
thereby reducing costs for our listed companies, and would not be a
burden on competition. These same providers, as well as Thomson
Financial, and financial printers, such as Bowne, Donneley, and Merrill
Corp., among others, also provide services comparable to the Form 8-K
EDGAR filings and webcasts that Nasdaq intends to provide. With respect
to EDGAR filings, Nasdaq notes that in the twelve months prior to
October 26, 2006, there were approximately 750,000 EDGAR filings.\16\
Even if all Nasdaq-listed companies used all four Form 8-K filings,
this would represent less than 2% of total EDGAR filings. As such,
Nasdaq does not believe its proposal will have any adverse impact on
competition for these services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Based on Nasdaq's analysis of press releases sourced from
the Comtex News Network data feed for the 90 days ending on October
23, 2006.
    \16\ This estimate is based on a search of the EDGAR database
performed through EDGARpro at http://pro.edgar-online.com/.

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

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

    Nasdaq has received two comments regarding the proposed rule
change. One commenter requested additional information about the
services offered by Nasdaq and questioned the competitive impact of
Nasdaq offering services to listed companies. Nasdaq's response to
these questions are incorporated in Items 3 and 4, above. In addition,
the commenter questioned whether Nasdaq will devote sufficient
resources to the dissemination of information through PrimeZone. In
fact, Nasdaq and PrimeZone are committed to expanding the already
substantial PrimeZone distribution network. Finally, the commenter
suggested that providing PrimeZone services to listed companies may be
a ``conflict of interest'' with Nasdaq's role as a regulator. Nasdaq
strongly disagrees with this assertion as Nasdaq does not regulate the
market for information dissemination. While Nasdaq rules support the
rules of the Commission by requiring companies to disclose material
news, Nasdaq rules defer to the Commission's rules to determine the
proper method of such disclosure.\17\ Nasdaq has no intention to change
these rules.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Nasdaq rules permit material information to be disclosed in
``any Regulation FD complaint method (or combinations of methods).''
See Nasdaq Rule 4310(c)(16) and IM-4120-1 (emphasis added).
    \18\ The commenter also requested information as to the
allocation of fees within Nasdaq. Nasdaq notes that as a public
company it files periodic reports that include financial information
with the Commission. This information will identify the sources of
Nasdaq's revenues consistent with the requirements for those reports
and U.S. generally accepted accounting practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second commenter expressed concerns about paying for services
that his company would not use. As noted in Section 3, above, Nasdaq
believes that the listing fee provides substantial value even to
companies that do not use any of the services offered by Nasdaq, as it
also pays for access to the trading

facilities and regulation of the Nasdaq marketplace, which have been
enhanced since the last fee increase. In addition, Nasdaq notes that
the services being provided are designed to supplement those a company
already uses in achieving its investor relations, disclosure and other
corporate objectives.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which NASD consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-040 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-040. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2006-040 and should be submitted on or before
December 12, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19620 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1054-1058]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82442; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-108]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule

January 4, 2018.
    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 December 21, 2017, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by 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 Pricing Schedule in
the following respects: (i) Modify the Simple Order rebate applicable
to Specialists \3\ and Market Makers \4\ for adding liquidity in SPY;
\5\ (ii) establish a new $0.05 per contract surcharge for Customers \6\
whose SPY Complex Orders execute against simple Market Maker or
Specialist orders resting on the Simple Order Book; (iii) reduce the
per contract

credit that certain member organizations are entitled to receive when
routing away more than 5,000 Customer contracts per day in a given
month; and (iv) increase permit fees for Floor Brokers and Floor
Specialists and Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Specialist'' applies to transactions for the
account of a Specialist (as defined in Exchange Rule 1020(a)). A
Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an options
specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a). An options Specialist includes
a Remote Specialist which is defined as an options specialist in one
or more classes that does not have a physical presence on an
Exchange floor and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501.
    \4\ The term ``ROT, SQT and RSQT'' applies to transactions for
the accounts of Registered Option Traders (``ROTs''), Streaming
Quote Traders (``SQTs''), and Remote Streaming Quote Traders
(``RSQTs''). For purposes of the Pricing Schedule, the term ``Market
Maker'' will be utilized to describe fees and rebates applicable to
ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs. RSQTs may also be referred to as Remote Market
Markers (``RMMs'').
    \5\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund
(``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index.
    \6\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule in the following respects: (i) Modify the Simple Order
rebate applicable to Specialists and Market Makers for adding liquidity
in SPY; (ii) establish a new $0.05 per contract surcharge for Customers
whose SPY Complex Orders execute against simple Market Maker or
Specialist orders resting on the Simple Order Book; (iii) reduce the
per contract credit that certain member organizations are entitled to
receive when routing away more than 5,000 Customer contracts per day in
a given month; and (iv) increase permit fees for Floor Brokers and
Floor Specialists and Market Makers.
Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in SPY
    The Exchange first proposes to amend Section I.A. of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule, which sets forth a schedule of rebates and fees for
adding and removing liquidity in SPY with respect to Simple Orders.
Presently, the Pricing Schedule provides that Customers and Specialists
are entitled to a rebate to the extent that they add a requisite amount
of electronically executed Simple Order contracts per day in a given
month in SPY. The existing rebate varies on a five tier basis, which
each tier corresponding to a range of average daily volumes (``ADV'')
of Simple Order contracts in SPY added per month. The Exchange now
proposes to add a sixth tier to this Pricing Schedule. Specifically, it
proposes to amend Tier 4 by adjusting the applicable ADV range from
20,000 to 49,999 to 20,000 to 34,999 contracts per day in SPY in a
month and by decreasing the applicable per contract rebate from $0.31
to $0.27 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to establish a new
Tier 5, which will provide for a $0.30 per contract rebate that
Customers and Specialists will receive for adding an ADV of between
35,000 and 49,999 contracts per day in SPY in a month. Finally, the
Exchange proposes to rename the existing Tier 5 as Tier 6. The rebate
applicable to the new Tier 6 will remain $0.35 per contract for an ADV
of greater than 49,999 contracts per day in SPY in a month.
    The Exchange proposes the foregoing amendments, which will reduce
the rebate amount from that which applies to existing Tier 4 to that
which will apply to new Tiers 4 and 5, so as to provide a greater
incentive to Specialists and Market Makers to seek to qualify for the
top tier of rebates (new Tier 6). The Exchange also proposes to split
the existing Tier 4 into two tiers to provide for a more graduated
transition among tiers in the Pricing Schedule.
Customer Complex Order Surcharge
    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I.B of the Pricing
Schedule, which sets forth a schedule of rebates and fees for adding
and removing liquidity in SPY with respect to Complex Orders.
Presently, the Pricing Schedule charges Customers no fees for adding or
removing Complex Orders in SPY even as it charges fees to other
categories of member organizations for doing the same, including Market
Makers and Specialists.
    Customers submit Complex Orders to the Exchange because often,
Customers are able to execute such Complex Orders immediately by
executing the individual components thereof through interactions with
Market Maker and Specialist quotes that rest on the Exchange's Simple
Order Book. These Customers benefit from not having to wait for
counterparties that are willing to execute against their Complex Orders
in the Complex Order Book.
    Going forward, the Exchange proposes to impose a $0.05 per contract
surcharge on Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker
or Specialist quotes resting on the Simple Order Book. The Exchange
proposes this surcharge to reduce the costs to it of such transactions.
Not only does the Exchange receive no fees from Customers for engaging
in these transactions, but the Exchange also pays rebates to the Market
Makers and Specialists whose quotes execute against the Customers'
Complex Orders. Pursuant to Section I.A. of the Exchange's Pricing
Schedule, these rebates range from $0.15 to $0.35 per contact.
Routing Credit
    Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Section V of its Pricing
Schedule, which sets forth the fees it charges to Customers and Non-
Customers for routing orders away from the Exchange. Presently, Section
V pays a credit (equal to a Fixed Fee plus $0.05 per contract) \7\ to a
member organization that qualifies for a Tier 2, 3, 4 or 5 rebate in
the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing Schedule and
that routes away more than 5,000 Customer contracts per day in a given
month. The Exchange proposes to decrease the amount of the per contract
portion of the credit from $0.05 to $0.01 per contract. The Exchange
proposes to decrease the amount of this credit because it no longer
wishes to provide substantial subsidies to member organizations that
route Customer orders away from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the away market transaction fee is $0.00 or the away
market pays a rebate, then the Exchange provides the member
organization with a credit equal to the applicable Fixed Fee only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permit Fees
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section VI of the Pricing
Schedule, which sets forth the Exchange's membership fees.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase its monthly Permit Fees
for Floor Brokers, Floor Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange
presently charges Floor Brokers a monthly Permit Fee of $3,000 and it
now proposes to increase that fee to $4,000 per month. The Exchange
presently charges Floor Specialists and Market Makers a monthly Permit
Fee of $4,500 and it now proposes to increase that Fee to $6,000 per
month. The Exchange proposes to increase the amounts of these Permit
Fees to recoup its financial investment in building a new Trading Floor
for the Exchange as well as the costs associated with developing and
deploying new and more advanced technologies for use on the new Trading
Floor by Floor Brokers, Floor Specialists, and Market Makers.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) 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, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, 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.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\11\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\12\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \12\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \13\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \14\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in SPY
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to decrease
the amounts of its mid-tier rebates to Market Makers and Specialists
that add liquidity in SPY because the Exchange seeks to provide a
greater incentive to Market Makers and Specialists to increase their
ADVs of contracts in SPY so as to qualify for the top rebate tier,
which will be new Tier 6. The Exchange believes that this proposal is
an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the
same decrease in rebates will apply to all similarly situated Market
Makers and Specialists. Further, Market Makers and Specialists and
Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\15\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Complex Order Surcharge
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to impose a
$0.05 per contract surcharge on Customers that execute Complex Orders
against Market Maker or Specialist Quotes that rest on the Simple Order
Book. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable for it
to impose this surcharge as a means to reduce the Exchange's costs
associated with these transactions because each such transaction costs
the Exchange between $0.15 and $0.35 per contract in rebates to Market
Makers and Specialists. Moreover, it is reasonable to impose this
surcharge on Customers because Customers benefit the most from being
able to achieve immediate executions of their Complex Orders in the
relevant scenario. The Exchange believes that the surcharge is minimal
and will not be substantial enough to eliminate or even significantly
diminish the benefits to Customers of being able to achieve immediate
executions in this manner. Finally, the Exchange notes that all other
account categories--Professionals, Firms, Broker-Dealers, Specialists,
and Market Makers--pay higher fees (between $0.43 and $0.50 per
contract) for removing liquidity from the Complex Order Book than
Customers would pay under the proposal when they execute their Complex
Orders against Simple Orders of Market Makers and Specialists that are
resting on the Simple Order Book.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly
apply the fee to all similarly situated Customers. Moreover, Customers
may avoid this new surcharge by executing their Complex Orders in the
Exchange's Complex Order Book or by sending them to other trading
venues where the transaction costs to them will be less expensive. Even
with this surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per
contract for executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not
assessed fees for adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders.
The Exchange believes that assessing Customers lower fees is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Routing Credit
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to reduce the
amount of the credit it presently provides to certain member
organizations that route away more than 5,000 Customer orders per day
in a given month. Although the Exchange wishes to continue providing
incentives to member organizations to utilize its routing service, it
seeks to reduce the incentive for member organizations to route orders
to away markets. Despite the reduction, the Exchange believes the
credit remains competitive.

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory because the same reduced credit will
uniformly be assessed on all member organizations when routing orders.
Permit Fees
    Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to
increase its monthly Permit Fees for Floor Brokers and Floor
Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange has made substantial
investments in building a new state-of-the-art Trading Floor for the
Exchange as well as developing and deploying new and more advanced
technologies for use on the new Trading Floor to the benefit of Floor
Brokers, Floor Specialists, and Market Makers. The increased Permit
Fees are a reasonable way for the Exchange to recoup some of these
investments. Moreover, it is reasonable for the Exchange to recoup
these investments from those members and member organizations that
utilize the new Trading Floor and associated technologies.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation
and is not unfairly discriminatory because the same reduced credit will
uniformly apply uniformly to all situated Floor Brokers, Specialists,
and Market Makers that utilize the Trading Floor. Likewise, the
Exchange does not believe that its proposal to increase Permit Fees
will unduly burden competition because Floor Brokers, Market Makers,
and Specialists may choose to utilize the Exchange's electronic
environment or become members of other exchanges' trading floors if
they conclude that the Exchange's Permit Fees are prohibitively
expensive.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed and
the credits and rebates available do not impose a burden on competition
because the Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and
subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from
off-exchange venues. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
Simple Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in SPY
    The Exchange's proposal to decrease the amounts of its mid-tier
rebates to Market Makers and Specialists that add liquidity in SPY does
not impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers and
Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and
regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market
participants.\16\ They have obligations to make continuous markets,
engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course
of dealings. The differentiation as between Specialists and Market
Makers and all other market participants recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. An increase in the activity of
these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which
may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Complex Order Surcharge
    The Exchange's proposal to impose a $0.05 per contract surcharge on
Customers that execute Complex Orders against Market Maker or
Specialist Quotes that rest on the Simple Order Book does not impose an
undue burden on competition because Customers may avoid this new
surcharge by executing their Complex Orders in the Exchange's Complex
Order Book or by sending them to other trading venues where the
transaction costs to them will be less expensive. Even with this
surcharge, Customers are assessed the least amount per contract for
executions in SPY. As noted herein, Customers are not assessed fees for
adding and removing liquidity for SPY Complex Orders. The Exchange
believes that assessing Customers lower fees is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because Customer orders bring valuable
liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market
participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Routing Credit
    The Exchange's proposal to reduce the amount of the credit it
presently provides to certain member organizations that route away more
than 5,000 Customer orders per day in a given month does not impose an
undue burden on competition because the reduced credit will uniformly
be assessed on all member organizations when routing orders.
Permit Fees
    The Exchange's proposal to increase its monthly Permit Fees for
Floor Brokers and Floor Specialists and Market Makers does not impose
an undue burden on competition because the permit fees will be
uniformly assessed to all Floor Brokers, Specialists, and Market Makers
that utilize the Trading Floor. Likewise, the Exchange does not believe
that its proposal to increase Permit Fees will unduly burden
competition because Floor Brokers, Market Makers, and Specialists may
choose to utilize the Exchange's electronic environment or become
members of other exchanges' trading floors if they conclude that the
Exchange's Permit Fees are prohibitively expensive.

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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-108 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-Phlx-2017-108. 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-Phlx-2017-108, and should be submitted
on or before January 30, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00214 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1667-1668]
[DOCID:fr12ja10-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-61296; File No. SR-ISE-2009-114]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes

January 6, 2010.
    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 December 31, 2009, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by 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 ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase the
surcharge fee for transactions in options on the Nasdaq-100[supreg]
Stock Index. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase
the surcharge fee for transactions in options

on the Nasdaq-100 Stock Index, both full value (``NDX'') and 1/10 value
(``MNX'').\3\ The Exchange currently charges an execution fee for most
transactions in options on NDX and MNX.\4\ Specifically, the amount of
the execution fee for transactions in options on NDX and MNX is $0.20
per contract for all Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the
execution fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions in options on NDX
and MNX is equal to the execution fee currently charged by the Exchange
for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options.\5\ Finally, the
amount of the execution fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions
is $0.45 per contract.\6\ For competitive reasons, the Exchange does
not charge an execution fee for transactions in options on NDX and MNX
executed by Public Customer Orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51121 (February 1,
2005), 70 FR 6476 (February 7, 2005) (Order approving the trading of
options on full and reduced values of the Nasdaq-100 Stock Index).
    \4\ These fees are charged only to Exchange members. Under a
pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2010, these fees
will also be charged to Linkage Principal Orders (``Linkage P
Orders'') and Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``Linkage P/
A Orders''). The amount of the execution fee charged by the Exchange
for Linkage P Orders and Linkage P/A Orders is $0.27 per contract
side and $0.18 per contract side, respectively. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60175 (June 25, 2009), 74 FR 32026 (July 6,
2009) (SR-ISE-2009-36).
    \5\ The Exchange applies a sliding scale, between $0.01 and
$0.18 per contract side, based on the number of contracts an ISE
market maker trades in a month.
    \6\ The amount of the execution fee for non-ISE Market Maker
transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and
Solicitation Mechanisms and for Orders entered into the Price
Improvement Mechanism by the member initiating the price improvement
order is $0.20 per contract.
    \7\ Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(39)
as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is
defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a person or entity that is
not a broker or dealer in securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to a license agreement between the Exchange and the NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc., (``NASDAQ''), the Exchange currently charges a
surcharge fee of $0.16 per contract for trading in options on NDX and
MNX. The Exchange recently renewed its license agreement with NASDAQ
pursuant to which the Exchange is now being charged six (6) cents more
per contract. Accordingly, to defray the increased licensing costs, the
Exchange proposes to increase the surcharge fee to $0.22 per contract
for trading in options on NDX and MNX, effective January 1, 2010. The
Exchange believes charging the participants that trade these
instruments is the most equitable means of recovering the costs of the
license. However, because of competitive pressures in the industry, the
Exchange proposes to continue excluding Public Customer Orders from
this surcharge fee. Accordingly, this surcharge fee will only be
charged to Exchange members with respect to non-Public Customer Orders
(e.g., Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker & Firm Proprietary orders).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2009-114 on the subject line.
    Paper Comments
     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-114. 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,\12\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will
also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-
2009-114 and should be submitted on or before  February 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-300 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P