would be treated as a final disciplinary action subject to SEC review.
The Exchange does not believe that an appeal by an affiliate to the
Exchange Board of Directors is appropriate, but rather such affiliate
should be permitted to appeal directly to the SEC. The Exchange notes
that NASDAQ, which also has an affiliate, has a rule that is
substantially the same as the Exchange's proposed rule and NYSE's
current rule.\58\ Because the Exchange's affiliates will still have a
right to appeal to the SEC, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule is not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The Exchange has one member organization, Archipelago
Securities LLC, that is an affiliate of the Exchange and that is
used for inbound and outbound routing of certain orders. See Rule 1,
Rule 17(c)--Equities & Rule 993NY.
    \58\ See NASDAQ Rule 9268(e)(2); NYSE Rule 9268(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed Rule 9269 would establish the process for the
issuance and review of default decisions by a Hearing Officer when a
respondent fails to timely answer a complaint or fails to appear at a
pre-hearing conference or hearing where due notice has been provided. A
Party may, for good cause shown, file a motion to set aside a default
decision. A default decision would become the final disciplinary action
of the Exchange if a request for review by the Exchange Board of
Directors is not filed within 25 days after the date the decision is
served on the Parties. The proposed rule is the same as NYSE Rule 9269.
    Current Rule 476(d) provides a similar mechanism for default
decisions as the proposed rule change. As described above, under the
current rule, if the respondent has failed to file an Answer, the
Exchange, by motion, accompanied by proof of notice to the respondent,
may request a determination of guilt by default, and may recommend a
penalty to be imposed. If the respondent opposes the motion, the
Hearing Officer, on a determination that the respondent had adequate
reason to fail to file an Answer, may adjourn the hearing date and
direct the respondent to promptly file an Answer. If the default motion
is unopposed, or the respondent did not have adequate reason to fail to
file an Answer, or the respondent failed to file an Answer after being
given an opportunity to do so, the Hearing Officer, on a determination
that the respondent has had notice of the charges and that the Exchange
has jurisdiction in the matter, may find guilt and determine a penalty.
Unlike the proposed rule, the current rule does not contain a provision
for setting aside a default decision that has been rendered.
Proposed Rule 9270
    Proposed Rule 9270 would provide for a settlement procedure for a
respondent who has been notified that a proceeding has been instituted
against him or her. The proposed settlement procedure would be
different from the Stipulation and Consent procedure under current Rule
476(g), which is described above. The proposed rule would be the same
as NYSE Rule 9270, except as described below.
    Under proposed Rule 9270(a), a respondent notified of the
institution of a disciplinary proceeding could make a written offer of
settlement at any time, but the proposal would not stay the proceeding
unless the Hearing Officer determined otherwise. The proposed rule
differs from current Rule 476(g), which requires that a Stipulation and
Consent be agreed to by both the respondent and Exchange staff.
    Under proposed Rule 9270(b), a respondent would be prohibited from
making a frivolous settlement offer or one that was inconsistent with
the seriousness of the violations. Current Rule 476(g) does not contain
a similar provision.
    Proposed Rule 9270(c) would set forth the required content of the
proposal, which would include a statement consenting to findings of
fact and violations and a proposed sanction. The proposed rule would be
the same as NYSE's rule, except that, like FINRA Rule 9270(c)(5), the
proposed rule would also require that the proposed

sanction be consistent with the Exchange's sanctions guidelines, if
applicable, or, if inconsistent with the sanction guidelines, include a
detailed statement supporting the proposed sanction. The NYSE does not
have sanctions guidelines, so this requirement was not included in
NYSE's rules.\59\ As noted above, the Exchange's Sanctions Guidelines
apply only to matters involving violations of the options rules. In
connection with matters not covered by the Sanctions Guidelines, the
CRO, Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, as applicable, would
consider relevant Exchange precedent or such other precedent as it
deemed appropriate in determining whether to accept a settlement offer.
Current Rule 476(g) similarly requires that a Stipulation and Consent
contain proposed findings of fact, violations, and a specified penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 2013 Notice, 78 FR at 5229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 9270(d) would provide that submission of a settlement
offer waives a respondent's right to a hearing, the right to claim bias
or ex parte communication violations, and the right to review by the
Exchange Board of Directors, the Commission, or the courts. This
differs from current Rule 476(g), which allows either party to request
a hearing on a Stipulation and Consent or a Hearing Officer to convene
a hearing on a Stipulation and Consent in certain circumstances.
    Proposed Rule 9270(e) would address contested settlement offers.
Under the proposed rule, if a respondent made an offer of settlement
and Enforcement opposed it, the offer of settlement would be contested
and thereby deemed rejected, and thus the proceeding would continue to
completion under the proposed Rule 9200 Series. The contested offer of
settlement would not be transmitted to the Office of Hearing Officers,
the CRO, or Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, and would not
constitute a part of the record in any proceeding against the
respondent making the offer. The Exchange has determined that if the
Parties cannot reach agreement on the offer of settlement, then the
matter should proceed under the proposed Rule 9200 Series. The Exchange
believes that its proposed rule would encourage respondents to make
reasonable offers of settlement that will be acceptable to Enforcement
and is consistent with the Exchange's current process under Rule
476(g), which does not contemplate contested settlement offers but
rather requires that both the respondent and Exchange staff agree on
the Stipulation and Consent.
    Proposed Rule 9270(f) and (h) would address uncontested offers of
settlement. Under the proposed rule, an offer of settlement would be
uncontested if Enforcement does not oppose it. If a hearing on the
merits had not begun, the CRO could accept the settlement offer; if a
hearing on the merits had begun, the Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing
Panel could accept the settlement offer.\60\ If they did not, the offer
would be deemed withdrawn and the matter would proceed under the
proposed Rule 9200 Series and the settlement offer would not be part of
the record. As described below, if the offer of settlement were
accepted by the CRO, Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, it would
become final 25 days after being sent, together with an order of
acceptance, to each Director and each member of the Committee for
Review, unless review by the Exchange Board of Directors is required
pursuant to proposed Rule 9310(a)(1)(A) or (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In determining whether to accept a settlement offer, the
CRO, Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, as applicable, would
consider Exchange precedent or such other precedent as it deemed
appropriate, in addition to considering the Sanctions Guidelines, if
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates that the required acceptance by the CRO,
Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing Panel would help ensure objectivity
and consistency among offers of settlement that are issued. The
proposed rule change would also allow an offer of settlement to be
called for review by the Exchange Board of Directors. The Exchange
believes that this review mechanism provides an additional, appropriate
check and balance to the proposed settlement process.
    While the offer of settlement process has some similarity to the
Exchange's current Stipulation and Consent procedure in Rule 476(g) in
that it provides a settlement mechanism, there are certain key
differences. Under current Rule 476(g), a Hearing Officer must act on a
Stipulation and Consent submitted by the parties and may choose to
convene a Hearing Panel. Under the proposed rule change, as under NYSE
Rule 9270, a Hearing Officer would be required to act on an offer of
settlement only if a hearing on the merits had already begun. In
addition, under Rule 476(g), all determinations and penalties imposed
in connection with a Stipulation and Consent are final and conclusive
25 days after notice has been served upon the respondent. As discussed
below in connection with proposed Rule 9310(a)(1)(B), an offer of
settlement issued before a hearing on the merits has begun would become
final 25 days after being sent to each Director and member of the
Committee for Review, if not called for review by the Exchange Board of
Directors.
    Proposed Rule 9270(i) would address disciplinary proceedings with
multiple respondents and permit settlement offers to be accepted or
rejected as to any one or all of such respondents. Current Rule 476(g)
does not have a similar provision.
    Proposed Rule 9270(j) would provide that a respondent may not be
prejudiced by a rejected offer of settlement nor may such an offer of
settlement be introduced into evidence. The current rules do not have a
similar provision.
Proposed Rule 9280
    Proposed Rule 9280 would set forth sanctions for contemptuous
conduct by a Party or attorney or other representative, which may
include exclusion from a hearing or conference, and sets forth a
process for reviewing such exclusions. The Exchange proposes to have
the Chief Hearing Officer review exclusions. The Exchange believes that
respondents and their attorneys and representatives will have adequate
procedural protections with a review by the Chief Hearing Officer.
Current Rule 476 does not have similar procedures for contemptuous
conduct generally, but Rule 476(h) does allow for a fine or sanction
for improper conduct before a Hearing Board. The proposed Rule is the
same as NYSE Rule 9280.
Proposed Rule 9290
    Under proposed Rule 9290, for any disciplinary proceeding the
subject matter of which also is subject to a temporary cease and desist
proceeding initiated pursuant to proposed Rule 9810 or a temporary
cease and desist order, hearings would be required to be held and
decisions rendered at the earliest possible time. The Exchange
currently does not have a similar rule. The proposed rule is the same
as NYSE Rule 9290.
Proposed Rules 9300 and 9310
    The Exchange's appellate and call for review processes would be set
forth in the Rule 9300 Series, specifically proposed Rule 9310. The
text is substantially similar to current Rule 476(f), (g) and (l), with
certain differences that are described below. The text of proposed Rule
9310 is the same as NYSE Rule 9310, except as described below.
    Under proposed Rule 9310(a)(1)(A), any Party, any Director, and any
member of the Committee for Review could require a review by the
Exchange

Board of Directors of any determination or penalty, or both, imposed by
a Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel under the proposed Rule 9200
Series, except that none of the aforementioned persons could request a
review by the Exchange Board of Directors of a decision concerning an
Exchange member or member organization that is an affiliate. Under the
proposed rule, a request for review would be made by filing with the
Secretary of the Exchange a written request therefor, which states the
basis and reasons for such review, within 25 days after notice of the
determination and/or penalty was served upon the respondent. The
Secretary of the Exchange would give notice of any such request for
review to the Parties.
    Proposed Rule 9310(a)(1)(B) would govern the call for review
process in connection with AWC letters and offers of settlement
determined to be uncontested before a hearing on the merits has begun.
Under the proposed rule, any Director and any member of the Committee
for Review could require a review by the Exchange Board of Directors of
any determination or penalty, or both, imposed in connection with an
AWC letter under Rule 9216 or an offer of settlement determined to be
uncontested before a hearing on the merits has begun under Rule
9270(f), except that none of those persons could request a review by
the Exchange Board of Directors of a determination or penalty
concerning an Exchange member or member organization that is an
affiliate of the Exchange. A request for review pursuant to proposed
paragraph (a)(1)(B)(i) would be made by filing with the Secretary of
the Exchange a written request stating the basis and reasons for such
review, within 25 days after the AWC letter or offer of settlement has
been sent to each Director and each member of the CFR. The Secretary of
the Exchange would give notice of any such request for review to the
Parties.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes that any party could require a
review by the Exchange Board of Directors of any rejection by the CRO
of an AWC letter under Rule 9216 or an offer of settlement determined
to be uncontested before a hearing on the merits has begun under Rule
9270(f), except that no party could request Board review of a rejection
of an AWC letter or offer of settlement concerning an Exchange member
or member organization that is an affiliate of the Exchange. Under
subparagraph (B)(ii) of proposed Rule 9310(a)(1), such a request for
review would be made by filing with the Secretary of the Exchange a
written request therefor, which states the basis and reasons for such
review, within 25 days after notification pursuant to Rule 9216(a)(3)
or Rule 9270(h) that an AWC letter or uncontested offer of settlement
or order of acceptance is not accepted by the CRO. The Exchange
proposes that the Secretary of the Exchange would give notice of any
such request for review to the parties.
    The text of proposed Rule 9310(a)(1) differs from Rule 476 in order
to align it with terms used in the remainder of the proposed Rule 9000
Series. The call for review process described in proposed Rule
9310(a)(1)(A) is consistent with the process described in Rule 476(f)
and (g) regarding review of a determination or penalty imposed by a
Hearing Panel. The call for review process described in Rule
9310(a)(1)(B) for AWC letters and offers of settlement before a hearing
on the merits has begun differs from Rule 476 because it describes a
process for reviewing determinations and penalties imposed without
involvement of a Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel. No such process
exists under the Exchange's current rules because Rule 476(g) provides
that a Hearing Officer must act on a Stipulation and Consent submitted
by the parties and may choose to convene a Hearing Panel.
    The Exchange believes that allowing AWC letters and offers of
settlement accepted by the CRO to be called for review by the Exchange
Board of Directors, together with the proposed rule permitting parties
to request Board review of a determination to reject an uncontested
offer of settlement, provides an additional, appropriate check and
balance to the settlement process. Allowing for such review would
provide an additional layer of review for determinations made by the
CRO. It would also permit all AWC letters and offers of settlement to
be subject to review if requested by a Director or a member of the
Committee for Review. The Exchange believes that the 25-day period in
proposed Rule 9310(a)(1)(B) is reasonable and sufficient. The proposed
25-day period is consistent with the 25-day period for Board review of
a Stipulation and Consent (or rejection thereof) set forth in current
Rule 476(g). The proposed rule change is also consistent with the
period applicable to review of a determination or penalty imposed by a
Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel in NYSE Rule 9310(a)(1).
Similarly, the proposed rule change is consistent with the 25-day
period for requesting review of a default decision under proposed Rule
9269(d).
    Under proposed Rule 9310(a)(2), the Secretary of the Exchange would
direct the Office of Hearing Officers, in connection with any review
under paragraph (a)(1)(A), to complete and transmit a record of the
disciplinary proceeding in accordance with Rule 9267. Within 21 days
after the Secretary of the Exchange gives notice of a request for
review to the Parties, or at such later time as the Secretary of the
Exchange could designate, the Office of Hearing Officers would assemble
and prepare an index to the record, transmit the record and the index
to the Secretary of the Exchange, and serve copies of the index upon
all Parties. The Hearing Officer who participated in the disciplinary
proceeding, or the Chief Hearing Officer, would certify that the record
transmitted to the Secretary of the Exchange was complete. Current Rule
476(f) does not contain such requirements.
    Under proposed Rule 9310(b), any review by the Exchange Board of
Directors would be based on oral arguments and written briefs and
limited to consideration of the record before the Hearing Panel or
Extended Hearing Panel. Proposed Rule 9310(b) also incorporates Rule
476(f)'s provision relating to appeals panels.\61\ Specifically, under
proposed Rule 9310(b), the CFR may, but is not required to, appoint an
appeals panel to conduct a review under this subsection and make a
recommendation to the CFR. An appeals panel appointed by the CFR would
consist of at least three and no more than five individuals. An appeals
panel appointed by the CFR for equities matters would be composed of at
least one director and one member or individual associated with an
equities member organization. An appeals panel appointed by the CFR for
options matters would be composed of at least one director and one
member or individual associated with an options member organization.
NYSE Rule 9310(b) does not contain a similar provision relating to
appeals panels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See note 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review, and with the advice of the CFR, the Exchange Board of
Directors, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Exchange Board
of Directors then in office, could sustain any determination or penalty
imposed, or both; could modify or reverse any such determination; and
could increase, decrease or eliminate any such penalty, or impose any
penalty permitted under the Exchange's rules, as it deems appropriate.
Unless the Exchange Board of Directors otherwise specifically directed,
the determination and penalty,

if any, of the Exchange Board of Directors after review would be final
and conclusive, subject to the provisions for review under the Act. The
proposed rule is substantially the same as provided in current Rule
476(f), other than conforming and technical changes to align it with
terms used in the remainder of the proposed Rule 9000 Series.
    Under proposed Rule 9310(c), notwithstanding the foregoing, if
either Party upon review applied to the Exchange Board of Directors for
leave to adduce additional evidence, and showed to the satisfaction of
the Exchange Board of Directors that the additional evidence was
material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce
it before the Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, the Exchange
Board of Directors could remand the case for further proceedings, in
whatever manner and on whatever conditions the Exchange Board of
Directors considered appropriate. The proposed rule is substantially
the same as provided in current Rule 476(f), other than conforming and
technical changes to align it with terms used in the remainder of the
proposed Rule 9000 Series.
    Under proposed Rule 9310(d), notwithstanding any other provisions
of the proposed Rule 9000 Series, the CEO could not require a review by
the Exchange Board of Directors under this Rule and would be recused
from deliberations and actions of the Exchange Board of Directors with
respect to such matters. The proposed rule is substantially the same as
provided in current Rule 476(l), other than conforming and technical
changes to align it with terms used in the remainder of the proposed
Rule 9000 Series.
Proposed Rules 9500 Through 9527
    The proposed Rule 9520 Series would govern eligibility proceedings
for persons subject to statutory disqualifications that are not FINRA
members. The Exchange does not currently have any rules governing this
subject matter and proposes to adopt the NYSE Rule 9520 Series.\62\ The
Exchange intends for the scope of the proposed Rule 9520 Series to be
the same as the NYSE Rule 9520 Series, and as such, intends to issue a
notice to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The NYSE Rule 9520 Series was based on the FINRA Rule 9520
Series, and the scope of the NYSE Rule 9520 Series was intended to
be the same as FINRA Rule 9520 Series. See 2013 Approval Order, 78
FR at 15399. FINRA has been processing statutory disqualification
applications on behalf of the Exchange since 2009. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60409 (July 30, 2009), 74 FR 39353 (August
6, 2009) (File No. 4-587).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 9521 would add certain definitions relating to
eligibility proceedings that are not currently part of the Exchange's
rules, including definitions of ``Application,'' ``disqualified member
organization,'' ``disqualified person,'' and ``sponsoring member
organization.'' Proposed Rule 9521 is the same as NYSE Rule 9521 except
that it includes ``ATP Holder'' in subparagraph (a) describing the
rule's purpose and in the definition of ``disqualified member
organization'' in subparagraph (b)(2). As noted previously, the
references to ATP Holders in the proposed Rule 9520 Series relate
solely to options members that have employees and not ATP Holders
without employees or those associated with an options member
organization.
    Proposed Rule 9522 would govern the initiation of an eligibility
proceeding by the Exchange and the obligation for a member organization
or covered person to file an application to initiate an eligibility
proceeding if it has been subject to certain disqualifications.
Further, under the proposed rule, FINRA's Department of Member
Regulation could approve a written request for relief from the
eligibility requirements under certain circumstances. Once again, the
proposed Rule is the same as its NYSE counterpart except for references
to ``ATP Holder'' to reflect the Exchange's membership.
    Proposed Rule 9523 would allow the Department of Member Regulation
to recommend a supervisory plan to which the disqualified member
organization, sponsoring member organization, and/or disqualified
person, as the case may be, may consent and by doing so, waive the
right to hearing or appeal if the plan is accepted and the right to
claim bias or prejudgment, or prohibited ex parte communications. If
such a supervisory plan were rejected, proposed Rule 9524 would allow a
request for review by the applicant to the Exchange Board of Directors.
Proposed Rule 9524 is the same as the NYSE Rule. Proposed Rule 9527
would provide that a filing of an application for review would not stay
the effectiveness of final action by the Exchange unless the Commission
otherwise ordered. Proposed Rule 9527 is the same as the NYSE Rule. To
maintain consistency with NYSE's rule numbering, proposed Rules 9525
and 9526 would be designated ``Reserved.''
Proposed Rules 9550 Through 9559
    Proposed Rules 9551 through 9559 would govern expedited
proceedings.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Proposed Rule 9553 would be designated ``Reserved'' to
maintain consistency with NYSE's rule numbering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 9551, Regulatory Staff could issue a written
notice requiring a member or member organization \64\ to file
communications with the Exchange's Advertising Regulation Department at
least 10 days prior to use if the staff determined that the member or
member organization had departed from the standards of Rule 2210--
Equities or Rule 991.\65\ The notice would state the specific grounds
and include the factual basis for the action as well as the effective
date. The member or member organization could file a written request
for a hearing with the Office of Hearing Officers pursuant to proposed
Rule 9559. A member or member organization would be required to set
forth with specificity any and all defenses to the action in its
request for a hearing. Pursuant to proposed Rules 8310(a) and 9559(n),
a Hearing Officer or, if applicable, Hearing Panel, could approve,
modify or withdraw any and all sanctions or limitations imposed by the
staff's notice, and impose any other fitting sanction. A member or
member organization subject to a pre-use filing requirement also could
file a written request for modification or termination of the
requirement. The Exchange currently uses FINRA Rule 9551 and 9559,
which are the same, to carry out these procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See notes 25 and 26, supra.
    \65\ Proposed Rule 9551 is the same as NYSE Rule 9551 except for
the inclusion of references to Exchange rules, and the inclusion of
``member'' before ``member organization'' to reflect the Exchange's
membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 9552 would establish procedures in the event that a
member organization or covered person failed to provide any
information, report, material, data, or testimony requested or required
to be filed under the Exchange's rules, or failed to keep its
membership application or supporting documents current. In the event of
the foregoing, under proposed Rule 9552, the member organization or
covered person could be suspended if corrective action were not taken
within 21 days after service of notice. A member organization or
covered person served with a notice could request a hearing within the
21-day period. A member organization or covered person subject to a
suspension could file a written request for termination of the
suspension on the ground of full compliance. A member organization or
covered person suspended under the

proposed rule change that failed to request termination of the
suspension within three months of issuance of the original notice of
suspension would automatically be expelled or barred.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The Exchange believes that the provision for automatic
expulsion or bar after three months is consistent with Section 6 of
the Act because the respondent would have ample notice and
opportunity to be heard under proposed Rule 9552, the proposed rule
is substantially the same as FINRA's counterpart rule, and the
Commission has upheld at least one bar under a prior version of
FINRA's rule. See, e.g., Dennis A. Pearson, Jr., Securities Exchange
Act Rel. Nos. 54913 (December 11, 2006) (dismissing application for
review by associated person barred under NASD Rule 9552(h)) & 55597A
(April 6, 2007) (denying motion for reconsideration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no provision for such an expedited proceeding under the
Exchange's current rules. Under current Rule 476(a)(11), a member
organization or covered person is subject to a regular, as opposed to
expedited, disciplinary proceeding for failure to submit books and
records or provide testimony upon request of the Exchange and for
failure to update a Form BD. Proposed Rule 9552 is the same as its NYSE
counterpart except for references to ``ATP Holder'' to reflect the
Exchange's membership.
    Proposed Rule 9554, relating to failures to comply with an
arbitration award or related settlement or an Exchange order of
restitution or Exchange settlement agreement providing for restitution,
would contain similar procedures and consequences as proposed Rule
9552. Under proposed Rule 9554, if a member organization or covered
person failed to comply with an arbitration award or a settlement
agreement related to an arbitration or mediation under the Exchange's
rules, or an Exchange order of restitution or Exchange settlement
agreement providing for restitution, Regulatory Staff could provide
written notice to such member organization or covered person stating
that the failure to comply within 21 days of service of the notice will
result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a suspension
from associating with any member organization or ATP Holder. Under
current Rule 600(c)--Equities and Rule 624 of the Exchange's
Arbitration Rules applicable to options members, the failure to honor
an arbitration award subjects a member organization, member, or
registered person to a regular disciplinary proceeding under Rule 476.
Proposed Rule 9554 is also the same as its NYSE counterpart except for
references to ``ATP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 9555 would govern the failure to meet the eligibility
or qualification standards or prerequisites for access to services
offered by the Exchange. Under proposed Rule 9555, if a member
organization or covered person did not meet the eligibility or
qualification standards set forth in the Exchange's rules, Exchange
staff could provide written notice to such member organization or
covered person stating that the failure to become eligible or qualified
will result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a
suspension or bar from associating with any member organization or ATP
Holder.
    Similarly, if a member organization or covered person did not meet
the prerequisites for access to services offered by the Exchange or a
member or member organization thereof or could not be permitted to
continue to have access to services offered by the Exchange or a member
or member organization thereof with safety to investors, creditors,
members or member organizations, or the Exchange, Exchange staff could
provide written notice to such member organization or covered person
limiting or prohibiting access to services offered by the Exchange or a
member or member organization thereof. The limitation, prohibition,
suspension, cancellation, or bar referenced in the notice would become
effective 14 days after service of the notice unless the member
organization or covered person requested a hearing during that time,
except that the effective date for a notice of a limitation or
prohibition on access to services would be upon service of the notice.
As described above, under Rule 475(a), the Exchange currently may
prohibit or limit access to services offered by the Exchange or any
member or member organization thereof if the Exchange has provided 15
days' prior written notice of, and an opportunity to be heard upon, the
specific grounds for such prohibition or limitation, and provides a
written decision. Proposed Rule 9555 is the same as its NYSE
counterpart except for references to ``member'' and ``ATP Holder'' as
appropriate to reflect the Exchange's membership.
    Proposed Rule 9556 would provide procedures and consequences for a
failure to comply with temporary and permanent cease and desist orders,
which would be authorized by proposed Rule 9810. The Exchange currently
does not issue temporary or permanent cease and desist orders and, as
such, there is no counterpart in the Exchange's current rules. The
proposed rule is the same as its NYSE counterpart except for references
to ``ATP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 9557 would allow the Exchange to issue a notice
directing a member or member organization to comply with the provisions
of Rule 470 (Capital Requirements for Members and Member
Organizations), Rule 471 (Business Expansion Restrictions and Business
Reduction Requirements), Rule 4110--Equities (Capital Compliance),
4120--Equities (Regulatory Notification and Business Curtailment), or
4130--Equities (Regulation of Activities of Section 15C Member
Organizations Experiencing Financial and/or Operational Difficulties)
or otherwise directing it to restrict its business activities. The
notice would be immediately effective, except that a timely request for
a hearing would stay the effective date for 10 business days (unless
the Exchange's CRO determined otherwise) or until an order was issued
by the Office of Hearing Officers, whichever was earlier. The notice
could be withdrawn upon a showing that all the requirements were met.
Currently, if a member organization fails to comply with Rule 4110--
Equities, 4120--Equities, or 4130--Equities (which are substantially
the same as FINRA Rules 4110, 4120, and 4130), the Exchange issues a
notice pursuant to FINRA Rule 9557. Summary suspensions are also
authorized pursuant to Rule 475(b), as described above, for any
equities or options member or member organization that is in such
financial or operating difficulty that the member or member
organization cannot be permitted to continue to do business with safety
to investors, creditors, other members or member organizations, or the
Exchange. The proposed rule is the same as its NYSE counterpart except
for the inclusion of references to ``member'' to reflect the Exchange's
membership.
    Proposed Rule 9558 would allow the Exchange's CRO to provide
written authorization to Exchange staff to issue a written notice for a
summary proceeding for an action authorized by Section 6(d)(3) of the
Act. Such notice would be immediately effective. Such summary
proceedings are currently authorized under Rule 475(b), under which the
Exchange has authority to summarily suspend a member organization that
is expelled or suspended by another SRO or a covered person that is
barred or suspended by an SRO or limit or prohibit any person with
respect to access to Exchange services in certain circumstances; while
this rule also provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing, it
does not set forth a specific time limit for requesting a hearing. The
proposed rule is the same

as its NYSE counterpart except for references to ``ATP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 9559 would set forth uniform hearing procedures for
all expedited proceedings under the proposed Rule 9550 Series.
Currently, the Exchange does not have a rule comparable to FINRA Rule
9559. The proposed rule is the same as its NYSE counterpart except for
references to ``ATP Holder.''
Proposed Rule 9600 Series
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 9600 Series, which would
set forth procedures by which a member or member organization could
seek exemptive relief from current Rule 341.05 of Section 4 of the
Office Rules and Rule 345.15--Equities (examination requirements); Rule
2210--Equities (communications with the public pre-filing
requirements); Rule 3170--Equities (tape recording of registered
persons by certain firms); Rule 4311--Equities (carrying agreements);
Rule 4360--Equities (fidelity bonds); and proposed Rule 8211
(submission of electronic trading data). Under proposed Rule 9610, a
member or member organization seeking exemptive relief would be
required to file a written application with the appropriate department
or staff of the Exchange and provide a copy of the application to the
CRO. Under proposed Rule 9620, after considering the application,
Exchange staff would be required to issue a written decision setting
forth its findings and conclusions. The decision would be served on the
Applicant pursuant to proposed Rules 9132 and 9134. Under proposed Rule
9630, an Applicant that wished to appeal the decision would be required
to file a written notice of appeal with the Exchange's CRO within 15
calendar days after service of the decision. Under proposed Rule
9630(e), the CRO would affirm, modify, or reverse the decision issued
under proposed Rule 9620 and issue a written decision setting forth his
or her findings and conclusions and serve the decision on the
Applicant. The decision would be served pursuant to proposed Rules 9132
and 9134, would be effective upon service, and would constitute final
action of the Exchange.
    Currently, Rule 410A(d)--Equities permits a member or member
organization to seek an exception from the data format elements for
submitting electronic trading data for transactions effected on the
Exchange, but the Rule does not set forth specific procedures for doing
so. Similarly, current Rule 345.15--Equities and Rule 341.05 of Section
4 of the Office Rules and Rule 4311--Equities permit exemptions but do
not set forth specific procedures. Current Rules 2210--Equities and
4360--Equities reference FINRA's exemptive process; these rules would
be amended to delete the reference to the FINRA Rule 9600 Series as the
Exchange would now have its own such provisions.
    The proposed Rule 9600 Series is the same as the NYSE Rule 9600
Series, except for the list of rules providing exemptive relief and
references to ``member'' and ``ATP Holder'' to reflect the Exchange's
membership.
Proposed Rule 9700 Series
    The Rule 9700 Series would be marked ``Reserved'' to maintain
consistency with NYSE's rule numbering conventions. In adopting FINRA's
Rule 9000 Series in 2013, the NYSE did not adopt FINRA's Rule 9700
Series, which provides redress for persons aggrieved by the operations
of any automated quotation, execution, or communication system owned or
operated by FINRA, as inapplicable to the NYSE. For the same reasons,
the Exchange does not propose to adopt the FINRA Rule 9700 Series. The
Exchange notes that under current Rule 18--Equities, if a member
organization suffers a loss related to an Exchange system failure, it
can submit a claim pursuant to the procedures of that rule.\67\ ATP
Holders can submit similar claims for damages arising out of the use of
the NYSE Amex Options trading platform under Rule 905NY, subject to the
limitations set forth in that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The NYSE referenced its counterpart rule, NYSE Rule 18, in
the 2013 NYSE Disciplinary Rule Filing. See 2013 Approval Order, 78
FR at 15400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 9800 Series
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 9800 Series to set forth
procedures for issuing temporary cease and desist orders. The Exchange
does not currently have a comparable rule.
    Under proposed Rule 9810, with the prior written authorization of
the Exchange's CRO or such other senior officers as the CRO may
designate, Enforcement could initiate a temporary cease and desist
proceeding with respect to alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Act, SEC Rules 10b-5 and 15g-1 through 15g-9, Rule 476(a)(6) or Rule
2010--Equities (if the alleged violation is unauthorized trading, or
misuse or conversion of customer assets, or is based on violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933) or Rule 476(a)(5) or Rule
2020--Equities. Proposed Rule 9820 would govern the appointment of a
Hearing Officer and Panelists.
    Under proposed Rule 9830, the hearing would be held not later than
15 days after service of the notice and filing initiating the temporary
cease and desist proceeding, unless otherwise extended by the Hearing
Officer with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. Proposed
Rule 9830 would govern how the hearing was conducted.
    Under proposed Rule 9840, the Hearing Panel would be authorized to
issue a written decision stating whether a temporary cease and desist
order would be imposed. The Hearing Panel would be required to issue
the decision not later than 10 days after receipt of the hearing
transcript, unless otherwise extended by the Hearing Officer with the
consent of the Parties for good cause shown. Under proposed Rule 9850,
at any time after the Office of Hearing Officers served the respondent
with a temporary cease and desist order, a Party could apply to the
Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside, limited, or
suspended. The Hearing Panel generally would be required to respond to
the request in writing within 10 days after receipt of the request.
Proposed Rule 9860 would authorize the initiation of a suspension or
cancellation of a respondent's association or membership under proposed
Rule 9556 if the respondent violated a temporary cease and desist
order.
    Finally, proposed Rule 9870 would provide that temporary cease and
desist orders issued under the proposed Rule 9800 Series would
constitute final and immediately effective disciplinary sanctions
imposed by the Exchange, and that the right to have any action under
this rule series reviewed by the Commission would be governed by
Section 19 of the Act. The filing of an application for review would
not stay the effectiveness of the temporary cease and desist order,
unless the Commission otherwise ordered.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ FINRA recently amended its Rule 9800 Series to lower the
evidentiary standard for finding a violation to ``a showing of
likelihood of success on the merits.'' FINRA also amended Rule
Series 9100, 9200, 9300, and 9550 to adopt a new expedited
proceeding for failure to comply with a temporary cease and desist
order or a permanent cease and desist order; to harmonize the
provisions governing how documents are served in temporary cease and
desist proceedings and related expedited proceedings; to clarify the
process for issuing permanent cease and desist orders; to ease
FINRA's administrative burden in temporary cease and desist
proceedings; and to make conforming changes. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 75629 (Aug. 6, 2015), 80 FR 48379 (August 12, 2015)
(SR-FINRA-2015-019). The Exchange is not proposing to incorporate
similar amendments into its proposed Rule Series 9100, 9200, 9300,
9550, and 9800 at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Rule 9800 Series is the same as the NYSE Rule 9800
Series,

except that proposed Rule 9810(a) references violations of Exchange
rules rather than violations of similar NYSE rules.

Technical and Conforming Changes

    The Exchange proposes the following technical and conforming
changes.
General Rules
    Rule 0 in the Definitions under the General and Floor Rules would
be amended so that it correctly cross-references the current and
proposed disciplinary rule sets.
    Rule 31 of the General Rules and Supplementary Material .01 would
be deleted. This rule contains text that concerns requests for books
and records and testimony that is duplicative of current Rule
476(a)(11) and proposed Rule 8210. Supplementary Material .02 relating
to regulatory cooperation is not duplicative of proposed Rule 8210(b)
and would be retained. Rule 31 would be renamed ``Regulatory
Cooperation.''
    Rule 40 of the General Rules, which concerns denial of an ATP,
would be deleted. It is a legacy rule that is duplicative of current
Rule 475 and would be covered by proposed Rule 9558.
Contracts in Securities Rules
    Rule 781, which concerns insolvency, cross-references current Rule
475, so a cross-reference to proposed Rule 9558 would be added.
    Equities Rules Rule 0--Equities and Rule 500--Equities would be
amended so that they correctly cross-reference the current and proposed
disciplinary rule sets.
    Rule 2A--Equities would be amended to specify that the list of
disciplinary sanctions currently set forth in that rule would apply to
proceedings under current Rules 475 and 476, and the list of
disciplinary sanctions set forth in proposed Rule 8310(a) would apply
to proceedings initiated under the proposed Rule 9000 Series.
    Rule 36--Equities would be amended to include a reference to
proposed Rule 9558, which relates to summary proceedings for actions
authorized by Section 6(d)(3) of the Act.
    Rule 103B--Equities, which sets forth certain security allocation
and reallocation procedures when a Designated Market Maker unit loses
its registration in a specialty stock due to disciplinary proceedings,
would be amended to include references to the proposed Rule 8000 Series
and Rule 9000 Series.
    Rule 308--Equities, which sets forth procedures for member and
member organization acceptability proceedings, would be amended to
reference the Chief Hearing Officer as defined in proposed Rule 9120,
and delete the reference to a Chief Hearing Officer designated under
legacy Rule 476(b).
    The text of Rule 309--Equities would be deleted and the rule marked
``Reserved'' because new Rule 41 would replace it, as described above.
    Rule 345A--Equities would be amended to delete a reference to
recently deleted Rule 346(f)--Equities and replace it with a reference
to Rule 342(e) of the Office Rules.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Rule 346(f)--Equities provided that unless otherwise
permitted by the Exchange, no member, member organization, approved
person, employee or any person directly or indirectly controlling,
controlled by or under common control with a member or member
organization shall have associated with him or it any person who is
known, or in the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be
subject to any ``statutory disqualification'' defined in Section
3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39). Rule 346--
Equities was based on NYSE Rule 346 (Limitations--Employment and
Association with Members and Member Organizations). FINRA deleted
Incorporated NYSE Rule 346 in 2010 after adopting NASD Rule 3030
(Outside Business Activities of an Associated Person) as FINRA Rule
3270 (Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62762 (August 23, 2010), 75 FR
53362 (August 31, 2010) (order approving SR-FINRA-2009-042). FINRA
deleted NYSE Rule 346(f) as redundant given that FINRA had amended
its definition of disqualification in its By-Laws to align with the
Exchange Act definition, thereby incorporating additional categories
of statutory disqualification, including certain affiliated
relationships. See id., 75 FR at 53363.
    The Exchange deleted Rule 346(f)--Equities in its entirety and
adopted a new Rule 3270--Equities (Outside Business Activities of
Registered Persons), to correspond with rule changes filed by FINRA.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64130 (March 28, 2011), 76
FR 18283 (April 1, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-17). Rule 3270--Equities,
however, does not contain a provision comparable to Rule 346(f)--
Equities and in fact makes no mention of statutory disqualification.
The comparable provision to Rule 346(f)--Equities in the Exchange's
rules can be found in Rule 342(e) of the Office Rules, which
provides that no member, member organization, allied member,
approved person, employee, or any person directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by or under common control with a member or
member organization shall have associated with him or it any person
who is known, or in the exercise of reasonable care should be known,
to be subject to any ``statutory disqualification'' defined in
Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act. The Exchange accordingly
proposes to replace the reference to Rule 346(f)--Equities in Rule
345A--Equities with a reference to Rule 342(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 410A--Equities, concerning electronic trading data, would be
deleted as described above.
    Rule 600--Equities would be amended to include references to the
disciplinary proceedings of the proposed Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000
Series for failure to honor an arbitration award.
    As the Exchange proposes to adopt Rules 9551 and 9559 and the Rule
9600 Series, Rule 2210--Equities would be amended to revise the cross-
references to ``FINRA,'' ``FINRA Rules 9551 and 9559,'' and the ``FINRA
Rule 9600 Series.'' These cross-references were adopted as part of a
prior harmonization of Rule 2210--Equities with FINRA's rules and would
be obsolete.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70963 (November 29,
2013), 78 FR 73223 (December 5, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3170--Equities, concerning tape recording of registered
persons by certain firms, would be amended to add a reference to the
proposed Rule 9600 Series, pursuant to which exemptive relief may be
sought.
    Rules 4110--Equities, 4120--Equities, and 4130--Equities would be
amended to revise a cross-reference to FINRA Rule 9557 as the Exchange
proposes to adopt Rule 9557. Rule 4110--Equities would also be
corrected to add the missing paragraph designation for paragraph (e) of
the rule.
    Rule 4360--Equities would be amended to provide that any request
for an exemption would be processed under the proposed Rule 9600 Series
rather than FINRA rules.
Options Rules
    Rules 972, 902NY, 921NY, 923NY, 927.1NY, 927.2NY, 931NY, 955NY and
957NY contain cross-references to the current disciplinary rules.
Corresponding references to the proposed disciplinary rules would be
added.
    Rule 991 would be amended to revise cross-references to FINRA Rules
9551 and 9559 as the Exchange proposes to adopt Rules 9551 and
9559.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as noted above, Rule 956.1NY, which concerns electronic
trading data, would be deleted and marked ``Reserved.''
Certain Current Exchange Rules Not Included in Proposed Rule Text
    Certain aspects of current Exchange rules described above would not
be included in the proposed Rule 8000-9000 Series, because either the
Exchange does not believe they are necessary or the authority is
implicit in the proposed rule change.
    First, under current Rule 475(f), any person suspended under Rule
475 may, at any time, be reinstated by the Exchange Board of Directors.
The Exchange does not believe that it would continue to be appropriate
for the Exchange Board of Directors to have the authority to overturn a
suspension imposed by another Adjudicator in light of the detailed
procedural rules,

comprehensive protections to respondents, and continued availability of
the Exchange's appeals process under the proposed rule change.
    Second, under current Rules 475(g) and 476(k), any person suspended
under such rules may be disciplined in accordance with the Exchange's
rules for any offense committed before or after the suspension. The
Exchange believes that such authority is implicit in proposed Rule 9211
and need not be expressed in the proposed rule change.
    Under current Rules 475(h) and 476(j) and (k), a suspended person
is deprived during the term of the suspension of all rights and
privileges of membership, and any suspension of a member or principal
executive creates a vacancy in any office or position held by such
member or principal executive. The Exchange believes that this is
implicit in the concept of a suspension and need not be expressed in
the proposed rule change.
    Under current Rule 476(i), a member or principal executive of the
Exchange who is associated with a member organization is liable to the
same discipline and penalties for any act or omission of such member
organization as for the member or principal executive's own personal
act or omission. The Hearing Panel that considers the charges may
relieve him from the penalty therefor or may adjust the penalty on such
terms and conditions as the Hearing Panel or the Exchange Board of
Directors deems fair and equitable. The Exchange believes that this
authority is contained in the proposed rule change because complaints
may be brought against both member organizations and covered persons
and are subject to review by the Hearing Panel and the Exchange Board
of Directors.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\72\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\73\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\74\
in particular, in that it provides fair procedures for the disciplining
of members and persons associated with members,\75\ the denial of
membership to any person seeking membership therein, the barring of any
person from becoming associated with a member thereof, and the
prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to
access to services offered by the Exchange or a member thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \75\ Under the Exchange's equities rules, the equivalent to the
term ``member'' in this context is ``member organization.'' See
notes 25-26, supra, and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will provide greater harmonization between
Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members.
As previously noted, the proposed rule text is substantially the same
as the NYSE's rule text. The proposed rule change will enhance the
Exchange's ability to have a direct and meaningful impact on the end-
to-end quality of its regulatory program, from detection and
investigation of potential violations through the efficient initiation
and completion of disciplinary measures where appropriate. As such, the
proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
    Certain key aspects of the Exchange's disciplinary proceedings
would be retained. In particular, the Exchange would retain its current
selection process for Hearing Panelists. The Exchange believes that it
is necessary to do so in order to provide a fair procedure to its
member organizations and covered persons, some of which are not subject
to NYSE or FINRA jurisdiction. As such, the Exchange's Hearing
Panelists cannot be drawn solely from a pool of NYSE or FINRA members
and associated persons but rather must include NYSE MKT-only member
organizations and persons with experience in NYSE MKT Floor matters in
order for the Exchange's members to have a fair representation in its
affairs. For the same reasons, the Exchange also believes that its
Board of Directors remains the appropriate body for appeals or reviews
of initial disciplinary decisions because its Board of Directors
includes fair representation candidates from its membership.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed processes for
settling disciplinary matters both before and after the issuance of a
complaint are fair and reasonable. While such proposed rules differ
both from certain aspects of the Exchange's current Stipulation and
Consent process and FINRA's current settlement processes, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change nonetheless provides adequate
procedural protections to all parties and promotes efficiency.
    The Exchange would retain its list of minor rule violations, which
have already been approved by the Commission,\76\ with certain
technical and conforming amendments, while adopting NYSE's and FINRA's
process for imposing minor rule violation fines, which also have
already been approved by the Commission.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The most recent amendments to the Exchange's minor rule
violation plan were approved in Securities Exchange Act Release No.
66809 (April 13, 2012), 77 FR 23532 (April 19, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2012-10).
    \77\ See NYSE Rule 9216(b) and FINRA Rule 9216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposed transition plan
would allow for a more orderly and less burdensome transition for the
Exchange's members and member organizations. The proposed delayed
implementation of the new rule set would provide a clear demarcation
between matters that would proceed under the new rules and those that
would be completed under the legacy rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues, but rather it is designed
to (i) provide greater harmonization among Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA
rules of similar purpose for investigations and disciplinary matters;
and (ii) enhance the quality of the Exchange's regulatory program, from
detection of violations through disciplinary actions, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance and facilitating
performance of regulatory functions.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \78\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \79\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30, and should be
submitted on or before March 24, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04633 Filed 3-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62450-62451]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2270; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWP-11]

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Cottonwood, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Cottonwood
Airport, Cottonwood, AZ, to accommodate new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAP) at the airport. The FAA found establishment
of controlled airspace necessary for the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. 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.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Cottonwood, AZ.

History

    On August 5, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cottonwood Airport,
Cottonwood, AZ, (80 FR 46525). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005, of FAA
Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Cottonwood Airport, Cottonwood, AZ. New standard
instrument approach procedures have been developed for IFR operations
at the airport. The Class E airspace is established to within a 4-mile
radius of Cottonwood Airport, with a segment extending from the 4-mile
radius to 15 miles southeast of the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in
adverse or negative comments. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and
air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Cottonwood, AZ [New]

Cottonwood Airport, AZ
    (Lat. 34[deg]43'48'' N., long. 112[deg]02'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4-mile radius of Cottonwood Airport excluding that airspace
southwest of a line beginning where the 299[deg] bearing from the
airport intersects the 4-mile radius to a point where the 181[deg]
bearing from the airport intersects the 4-mile radius; and that
airspace 1.8 miles southwest and 1.2 miles northeast of the 150[deg]
bearing from the 4-mile radius to 15 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 1, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-26002 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5733-5734]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2527-002; ER10-3168-018; ER10-2960-005; ER15-
356-005; ER15-357-005; ER10-2532-006; ER10-1595-005; ER10-2533-002;
ER10-1598-005; ER10-2535-002; ER10-1616-005; ER12-2570-011; ER10-1618-
005; ER13-618-010.
    Applicants: Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, ArcLight Energy
Marketing, LLC, Astoria Generating Company, L.P., Chief Conemaugh
Power, LLC, Chief Keystone Power, LLC, Crescent Ridge LLC, Crete Energy
Venture, LLC, GSG, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, Mendota
Hills, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, Panther Creek Power
Operating, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C., Westwood Generation,
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Allegheny
Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160122-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-023.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160122-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-024.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2130-001; ER15-2131-001.
    Applicants: Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC and Milo Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Roosevelt
Wind Project, LLC and Milo Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160122-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2616-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-01-27_MISO-PJM JOA M2M FFE

Compliance Filing to be effective 11/3/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-202-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Deficiency Letter and
Amended Service Agreement No. 347 to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-244-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 3095 Substitute Missouri River
Energy Services NITSA NOA--Compliance Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-762-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-La Paloma Energy Center
IA Third Amend & Restated to be effective 1/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-763-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Service Agreement No. 602 of
NorthWestern Corporation.
    Filed Date: 1/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160122-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-764-000.
    Applicants: RE Astoria LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: LGIA Co-Tenancy Agreement to
be effective 3/27/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-765-000.
    Applicants: RE Astoria LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Garland Shared Facilities
Agreement to be effective 3/27/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-766-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Tariff of Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160127-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/16.

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

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01917 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 74079]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2361-056]

Allete, Inc.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With The
Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and
Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.a.
Type of Application: Subsequent License.b. Project No.: 2361-056.c.
Date filed: December 20, 2021.d. Applicant: Allete, Inc. (Allete).e.
Name of Project: Prairie River Hydroelectric Project (Prairie River
Project).f. Location: On the Prairie River, near the Township of Arbo
in Itasca County, Minnesota. The project does not include any federal
lands.g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-
825(r).h. Applicant Contact: Mr. David R. Moeller, Senior Attorney &
Director of Regulatory Compliance, ALLETE, Inc., d.b.a. Minnesota
Power, 30 West Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].j. This application is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.k. The Prairie River Project
consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A 1,305-acre
reservoir; (2) a concrete dam; (3) a reinforced-concrete penstock
extending from the forebay via a surge tank to the powerhouse; (4)
2,500-foot-long bypass reach; (5) a powerhouse containing two
generating units with a total installed capacity of 1.1 megawatts; and
(6) a 2.3/23-kilovolt transmission bank.
    The Prairie River Project is currently operated in a run-of-river
mode and generates an annual average of approximately 3,087,000
kilowatt hours. Allete proposes to continue operating the project as a
run-of-river facility and does not propose any new construction to the
project.l. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://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 on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).m. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.n.
Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according to the
following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)....  January 2022.
Request Additional Information............  February 2022.
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for    June 2022.
 Environmental Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2021-28297 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P795