[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 49748-49750]
[DOCID:fr29au07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27936; 812-13364]

Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund, et al.; Notice of Application

August 23, 2007.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections 18(c)
and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for
an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and pursuant to section
17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue
multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution fees
and early withdrawal charges.
    Applicants: Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund (the ``EcoTrends
Fund''), Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC (the ``Manager'')
and Allianz Global Investors Distributors LLC (the ``Distributor'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 15, 2007, and
amended on July 26, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment
during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this
notice.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on September 17, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o William V.
Healy, Esq., Allianz Global Investors Fund Management, LLC, 1345 Avenue
of the Americas, 49th Floor, New York, New York 10105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Yoder, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6878 or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division
of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC
20549-0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The EcoTrends Fund is a continuously offered non-diversified
closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and
organized as a Massachusetts business trust. The Manager is registered
as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and
serves as investment adviser to the EcoTrends Fund. The Distributor, a
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
acts as principal underwriter to the EcoTrends Fund. The Distributor is
under common control with the Manager and is an affiliated person, as
defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Manager.
    2. Applicants request that the order also apply to any other
continuously offered registered closed-end management investment
companies existing now or in the future that operate as interval funds
pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act for which the Manager, the
Distributor, or any entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control with the Manager or the Distributor acts as investment adviser,
principal underwriter or administrator (such investment companies,
together with the EcoTrends Fund, the ``Funds'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will do so in
a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of the
application. Applicants represent that each entity presently
intending to rely on the requested relief is listed as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The EcoTrends Fund continuously offers its shares to the public
pursuant to rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 at net asset
value. The shares of the EcoTrends Fund are not listed on any
securities exchange and will not be quoted on any quotation medium.
Applicants do not expect that any secondary market will develop for the
shares of the EcoTrends Fund. The EcoTrends Fund intends to operate as
an ``interval fund'' pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act and to make
periodic repurchase offers to its shareholders.
    4. The Funds seek the flexibility to be structured as multiple
class funds. The EcoTrends Fund currently offers one class of shares
and intends to offer additional classes of shares. The EcoTrends Fund
currently offers Class A shares at net asset value with a front-end
sales charge of up to 4.5% and an annual servicing and/or distribution
fee of up to .25% of average daily net assets. The EcoTrends Fund
intends to offer Class C shares at net asset value with an annual
distribution fee of up to 75% and an annual servicing fee of .25% (each
based on average daily net assets) and no front-end sales charge. Class
C shares would be subject to an early withdrawal charge (``EWC'') of 1%
for shares repurchased within one year of purchase. The Funds may in
the future offer additional classes of shares and/or another sales
charge structure.
    5. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and
distribution fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of
the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD Sales Charge Rule''). Applicants also represent that each
Fund will disclose in its prospectus, the fees, expenses and other
characteristics of each class of shares offered for sale by the
prospectus as is required for open-end multiple class funds under Form
N-1A. As is required for open-end funds, each Fund will disclose its
expenses in shareholder reports, and disclose any arrangements that
result in breakpoints in or elimination of sales loads in its
prospectus.\2\ Each Fund and the

Distributor will also comply with any requirements that may be adopted
by the Commission regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in
transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest
arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares,
and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing
arrangements as if those requirements applied to the Fund and the
Distributor.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring
open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in
shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by
Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7,
2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to
provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information).
    \3\ Confirmation Requirements and Point of Sale Disclosure
Requirements for Transactions in Certain Mutual Funds and Other
Securities, and Other Confirmation Requirement Amendments, and
Amendments to the Registration Form for Mutual Funds, Investment
Company Act Release No. 26341 (Jan. 29, 2004) (proposing release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Each Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Fund
attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and
expenses of each class will reflect distribution fees, service fees,
and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of a Fund
allocated to a particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata
basis by each outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that
each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act
as if it were an open-end investment company.
    7. Each Fund may waive the EWC for certain categories of
shareholders or transactions to be established from time to time. With
respect to any waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of the
EWC, each Fund will comply with rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Fund
were an open-end investment company.
    8. Each Fund may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under
which shareholders of the Fund may, during the Fund's periodic
repurchase periods, exchange their shares for shares of the same class
of other registered open-end investment companies or registered closed-
end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the Act and
continuously offer their shares at net asset value, and that are in the
Fund's group of investment companies. Fund shares so exchanged will
count as part of the repurchase offer amount as specified in rule 23c-3
under the Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under
the Act as if the Funds were open-end investment companies subject to
that rule. In complying with rule 11a-3, each Fund will treat the EWCs
as if they were a contingent deferred sales load (``CDSL'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security
if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one
class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of
multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section
18(c).
    2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of shares of
the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would
be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section
6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue
multiple classes of shares.
    4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and
voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not
discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants
submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate
the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader
choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed
closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise
the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree
than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are
permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund
will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end
investment company.

Early Withdrawal Charges

    1. Section 23(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that no
registered closed-end investment company will purchase securities of
which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other
open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to
submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be
purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may
permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of
investors.
    2. Rule 23c-3 under the Act permits a registered closed-end
investment company (an ``interval fund'') to make repurchase offers of
between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net
asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of
the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the Act provides that an
interval fund may deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase
fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is reasonably
intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the
repurchase.
    3. Section 23(c)(3) provides that the Commission may issue an order
that would permit a closed-end investment company to repurchase its
shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or
on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of
the class or classes of securities to be purchased. As noted above,
section 6(c) provides that the Commission may exempt any person,
security or transaction from any provision of the Act, if and to the
extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Because the Funds operate pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act,
applicants request relief under sections 6(c) and 23(c) from rule 23c-3
to permit the Funds to impose EWCs on shares of the Funds submitted for
repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
    4. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards
of sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3). Rule 6c-10 under the Act permits open-
end investment companies to impose CDSLs, subject to certain
conditions. Applicants state that EWCs are functionally similar to
CDSLs imposed by open-end investment companies under rule 6c-10.
Applicants state that EWCs may be necessary for the Distributor to
recover distribution costs. Applicants will comply with rule 6c-10

as if that rule applied to closed-end investment companies. The Funds
also will disclose EWCs in accordance with the requirements of Form N-
1A concerning CDSLs. Applicants further state that the Funds will apply
the EWC (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the EWC) uniformly
to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the
requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act.

Asset-Based Distribution Fees

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any
joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company
participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the
transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to permit the Funds to impose asset-based distribution fees.
Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those
rules applied to closed-end investment companies.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of
rules 6c-10, 11a-3, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3 and 22d-1 under the Act, as
amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end
management investment companies, and will comply with the NASD Sales
Charge Rule, as amended from time to time.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17076 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43085-43087]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0131]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Shallowbag Bay in Manteo, North Carolina. This
action is necessary to provide the safety of mariners on navigable
waters to protect the life and property of the maritime public and
spectators from the hazards posed by aerial fireworks display. Entry
into or movement within the safety zone during the enforcement period
is prohibited without approval of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2016, through
10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016. The safety zone created by this rule will
be subject to enforcement from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016.
The safety zone will also be subject to enforcement from 9 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2016, if the fireworks display is postponed
because of adverse weather.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0131 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Derek J. Burrill, Waterways Management Division
Chief, Sector North Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 4, 2016, fireworks will be launched from a barge located in
Shallowbag Bay in Manteo, North Carolina as part of the Manteo July 4th
Celebration. The Captain of the Port North Carolina is establishing a
temporary safety zone on specified waters of Shallowbag Bay within a
200-yard radius of a barge anchored in approximate position
35[deg]54'31'' N., longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. (NAD 1983). This safety
zone will be effective and

enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016 with a rain date
being July 5, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Access to the safety zone
will be restricted during the specified dates and times. On April 26,
2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC (81 FR 24521). There we
stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment
period that ended May 11, 2016, we received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Given the date of the fireworks
display, it is impracticable to delay the effective date of this rule
beyond July 4, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the aerial fireworks on July 4, 2016
or July 5, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard
radius of a barge anchored in approximate position 35[deg]54'31'' N.,
longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. This rule is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the
safety zone.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April
26, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on
July 4, 2016 with a rain date being July 5, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 10:30
p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200 yards
radius of a barge anchored in approximate position 35[deg]54'31'' N.,
longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. in Shallowbag Bay in Manteo, NC. The
duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and
these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    The primary impact of these regulations will be on limiting all
vessels wishing to transit the affected waterways during enforcement of
the safety zone on the waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200-yard
radius of a barge anchor in approximate position 35[deg]54'31'' N.,
longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. on July 04, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
with a rain date being July 5, 2016 from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Although
these regulations prevent traffic from transiting a portion of
Shallowbag Bay during this event, that restriction is limited in
duration, affects only a limited area, and will be well publicized to
allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected
area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves the establishment of a safety zone to limit all vessels
within a 200 yard radius of a barge anchor in approximate position
35[deg]54'31'' N., longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. on July 4, 2016 from 9
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. with a rain date being July 5, 2016 from 9 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. to protect life and property of mariners from the dangers
associated with aerial fireworks. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-- REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0131 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0131  Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, North
Carolina.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of a barge anchored in position
35[deg]54'31'' N., longitude 075[deg]39'46'' W. (NAD 1983).
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in Sec.  165.23 apply
to the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Persons or vessels requesting entry into or passage through any
portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or a designated representative. The Captain of the
Port or his designated representative can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by radio on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13
and 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2016, or a rain date of July 5, 2016, unless
cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 9, 2016.
P.J. Hill,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2016-15700 Filed 6-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30909-30910]
[DOCID:fr31my06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 23, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER01-48-006.
    Applicants: Powerex Corp.
    Description: Powerex Corp. submits a notice of a non-material
change in status with respect to events that have taken place since the
date of its last change in status filing.
    Filed Date: May 12, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1760-005.
    Applicants: Haleywest L.L.C.
    Description: Haleywest L.L.C. submits an amendment to its March 27,
2006 compliance filing for its market-based rate schedule pursuant to
FERC's February 2, 2006 Order.
    Filed Date: May 9, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-2214-007.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. acting as agent for Entergy
Operating Companies submits a refund report related to refunds ordered
by FERC.
    Filed Date: May 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3103-012; ER04-617-001; ER04-809-001; ER99-
3911-004; ER02-1884-004; ER99-3502-005.
    Applicants: Energy Investors Funds Group LLC; Project Finance Fund
III, L.P., United States Power Fund L.P.; United States Power Fund II,
L.P.; USPF II Institutional Fund, L.P.
    Description: Energy Investors Funds Group LLC et al. submit a
Notice of Change in Status to reflect various changes in upstream
ownership.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-685-002.
    Applicants: UGI Development Company.
    Description: UGI Utilities, Inc. submits an amendment to its March
28, 2006 compliance filing.
    Filed Date: May 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-693-003.
    Applicants: ISG Sparrows Point LLC.
    Description: ISG Sparrows Point LLC submits its triennial updated
power market analysis in compliance with FERC's order issued May 7,
2003 et al.
    Filed Date: May 9, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-974-000.
    Applicants: MEP Flora Power, LLC.
    Description: Aquila Merchant Services, Inc on behalf of MEP Flora
Power, LLC. submits a notice of cancellation of its Rate Schedule FERC
No. 1 and on May 10, 2006 submitted an errata to its May 9, 2006
filing.
    Filed Dates: May 9, 2006 and May 10, 2006.
    Accession Numbers: 20060518-0202 and 20060515-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-990-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp. submits amendments to
update the FERC Form 1 references in its formula rates for the W-1A and
W-2A Tariffs and Rate Schedule No. 51.
    Filed Date: May 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-991-000.
    Applicants: Texas Power Marketer.
    Description: Texas Power Marketer submits its petition for
acceptance of initial rate schedule, waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: May 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-992-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Otter Tail Power Co. submits its Contract for
Interconnection and Load Control Boundary Agreement with Western Area
Power Administration.
    Filed Date: May 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-993-000.
    Applicants: Orion Power MidWest, L.P.
    Description: Orion Power MidWest, L.P. submits tariff sheets to
implement Cost of Service Recovery Rates for the 244 megawatt combined
cycle generating facility at its Brunot Island generating station.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-994-000; ER06-995-000.
    Applicants: Western Kentucky Energy Corp.; LG&E Energy Marketing
Inc.
    Description: Western Kentucky Energy Corp. submits notice of
succession and LG&E Energy Marketing Inc. submits notice of
cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 40.
    Filed Date: May 15, 2006 and May 16, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-996-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Public Service Electric & Gas Co. submits four
Interconnection Agreements with Camden Cogen, LP et al.
    Filed Date: May 16, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-997-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co. submits a proposed
Restated Power Service Agreement with Alger Delta Cooperative
Association and on May 15, 2006 submitted the original signed
Certificate of Attestation to this filing.
    Filed Date: May 12, 2006 and May 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060519-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-998-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co. submits its proposed
Restated Power Service Agreement w/City of Crystal Falls, Michigan and
on May 15, 2006 submitted the original signed Certificate of
Attestation to this filing.
    Filed Dates: May 12, 2006 and May 15, 2006.
    Accession Numbers: 20060519-0145 and 20060519-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-999-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co. submits its proposed
Restated Power Service Agreement w/Ontonagon County Electrification
Association and on May 15, 2006 submitted the original signed
Certificate of Attestation to this filing.
    Filed Dates: May 12, 2006 and May 15, 2006.
    Accession Numbers: 20060519-0139 and 20060519-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 2, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8324 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


North Carolina Recommendation for Union County The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rationale for recommending the rural eastern portion of Union County, an MSA county and part of the Mecklenburg/ Union County Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary, to be excluded from the nonattainment recommendation for the 8 hour ozone standard. The Monroe monitor is located in the County.

  First, this area has a marginal 8 hour ozone problem for the three years spanning 2001 2003 season with a current Design Value ( DVC) of 0.088 ppm. More recent 8 hour ozonemodeling results show the future Design Value ( DVF) in 2007 as 0.077 ppm, which is well below the standard. The control measures included in the future year modeling are the NOx SIP call, new mobile source engine standards, low sulfur gasoline, and the phase in of North Carolina's OBD I/ M program implemented in July 2003.   Second, Union County has few industrial sources with only 0.15 tons of NOx emissions per day coming from point sources out of a county total of 15.01 tons per day ( Anthropogenic). The non road and highway mobile adds up to represent the bulk of the NOx emissions ( 14.45 tons per day) for the county's total of 15.01 tons per day. The 8 hour modeling results, which takes into account for future growth in Daily VMT and Population, clearly shows the Monroe monitor attaining the ozone standard in 2007.   Third, Union County ranks number 1 out of the 6 commuting counties into Mecklenburg County, contributing 5.2 percent of commuters driving to work each day. The eastern portion recommended for attainment has a low population density and accounts for only 15.7 percent of the total residents in the county. By following the MPO boundary, North Carolina believes the majority of the commuters from Union to Mecklenburg would be captured in this nonattainment boundary. Additionally, Union County already has an inspection and maintenance program to address the vehicle maintenance.   In conclusion, because the future year 8 hour ozone modeling demonstrate that the monitor in Union County will be well below the stand, North Carolina believes this is an important consideration for setting nonattainment boundaries that exclude the less populated eastern region. Also important to consider is the effect of the Federal engine and fuel standards and the expanding new I/ M program requiring on board diagnostic testing in 48 counties ( nearly half of North Carolina's 100 counties), which will continue to control mobile source emissions in counties regardless of the nonattainment designations.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35200-35201]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72388; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-049]

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

June 13, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 3, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, 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 its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules and Fees
Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how rules and
fees apply. As such, the Exchange proposes to make certain
clarifications in its Fees Schedule. Currently, the ``Exception''
section of the Exchange's ``Linkage Fees'' table states: ``CBOE will
not pass through or otherwise charge customer orders (of any size)
routed to other exchanges that were originally transmitted to the
Exchange from the trading floor through an Exchange-sponsored terminal
(e.g. a Floor Broker Workstation).'' The Exchange proposes to add the
phrase ``or PULSe Workstation'' into the parenthetical to clarify that
CBOE will not pass through or otherwise charge customer orders routed
to other exchanges that were originally transmitted to the Exchange
from a PULSe Workstation (which, like a Floor Broker Workstation, is an
Exchange-sponsored terminal on the trading floor).
    The Exchange also proposes to make certain clarifications relating
to the Floor Brokerage Fees table. Currently, the Floor Brokerage Fees
table sets forth the fees per contract for the following: (i) ``OEX,
SPX and SPXpm Index Options'', (ii) ``OEX SPX and SPXpm Crossed
Orders'', (iii), ``SROs'', (iv) ``SRO Crossed Orders'' (v) ``VIX, VXST
and Volatility Index Options'', and (vi) ``VIX, VXST and Volatility
Crossed Orders.'' The Exchange first proposes to reorganize the table
to group together like products and alleviate potential confusion.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to clarify that the fees per
contract listed for current references to ``OEX, SPX, SPXpm Index
Options,'' ``SROS,'' and ``VIX, VXST and Volatility Index Options'' are
fees for ``non-

crossed orders.'' Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to modify the
Floor Brokerage Fees table to (i) group OEX, SPX and SPXpm Index
Options together but explicitly differentiate between fees for ``Non-
Crossed Orders'' and ``Crossed Orders,'' (ii) group together SROs, but
explicitly differentiate between fees for ``Non-Crossed Orders'' and
``Crossed Orders,'' and (iii) group together VIX, VXST and Volatility
Index Options but explicitly differentiate between ``Non-Crossed
Orders'' and ``Crossed Orders.'' The Exchange notes that there is no
change occurring in the amounts of the Floor Brokerage Fees. The
Exchange believes reorganizing the Floor Brokerage Fees table and
grouping together fees that apply to certain products, eliminates
confusion regarding these fees and makes the Fees Schedule easier for
investors to read.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed clarifications to the Fees
Schedule will make the Fees Schedule easier to read and alleviate
potential confusion. The alleviation of potential confusion will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act CBOE does not believe that
the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed change to alleviate confusion is not
intended for competitive reasons and applies to all market
participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4 \6\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-049 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-049. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-049 and should be
submitted on or before July 10, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14311 Filed 6-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18873-18875]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07968]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74640; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending its Price List To Specify That a Member Organization May
Request That the Exchange Aggregate its Eligible Activity With Activity
of the Member Organization's Affiliates for Purposes of Charges or
Credits Based on Volume

April 2, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 25, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that a
member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its
eligible activity

with activity of the member organization's affiliates for purposes of
charges or credits based on volume. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that
member organizations may request that the Exchange aggregate their
eligible activity with activity of member organization's affiliates for
purposes of charges or credits based on volume. The proposed rule
change is based on NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') Rule 7027,
NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'') Rules at Chapter XV, and the NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Effective December 1, 2014, NASDAQ amended Rule 7027 to
harmonize the treatment of aggregation of affiliate activity of
affiliated members to be consistent with the rules governing NOM and
PHLX. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72966 (Sept. 3, 2014),
79 FR 53473 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-083). NOM and PHLX also
amended their respective rules to harmonize the process by which it
collects information from its members for purposes of aggregating
member activity between its equity and options markets. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72967 (Sept. 2, 2014), 79 FR
53471 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-082) and 72969 (Sept. 3,
2014), 79 FR 53485 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-PHLX-2014-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, for purposes of applying any provision of the
Exchange's Price List where the charge assessed, or credit provided, by
the Exchange depends on the volume of a member organization's activity,
a member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its
eligible activity with activity of such member organization's
affiliates. The Exchange further proposes that a member organization
requesting aggregation of eligible affiliate activity would be required
to (1) certify to the Exchange the affiliate status of member
organizations whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving
approval for aggregation, and (2) inform the Exchange immediately of
any event that causes an entity to cease being an affiliate. The
Exchange would review available information regarding the entities and
reserves the right to request additional information to verify the
affiliate status of an entity. As further proposed, the Exchange would
approve a request, unless it determines that the certificate is not
accurate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASDAQ Rule 7027(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes that if two or more member organizations
become affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and
submit the required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-
second day of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to
be effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more member
organizations become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month, or
submit a request for aggregation after the twenty second day of the
month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be effective as of
the first day of the next calendar month.\6\ The Exchange believes that
this requirement, which is also similar to requirements of other
exchanges,\7\ would be a fair and objective way to apply the
aggregation rule to fees and streamline the billing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASDAQ Rule 7027(a)(2).
    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to provide that for purposes of
applying any provision of the Price List where the charge assessed, or
credit provided, by the Exchange depends upon the volume of a member
organization's activity, references to an entity would be deemed to
include the entity and its affiliates that have been approved for
aggregation.\8\ The Exchange notes that its designated market makers
(``DMM'') are subject to specified pricing on the Price List. For
purposes of the Price List, a DMM may not aggregate its volume either
with other units within the same member organization or affiliates of
the member organization operating the DMM unit. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to provide that member organizations may not
aggregate volume where the Price List specifies that aggregation is not
permitted.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5.
    \9\ For example, the Price List specifies whether quoting and
trading activity relating to Supplemental Liquidity Provider
activity may be aggregated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes that for purposes of the Price List,
the term ``affiliate'' would mean any member organization under 75%
common ownership or control of that member organization.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NASDAQ Rule 7027(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among member organizations and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system with [sic] the
Exchange operates or controls and because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is
reasonable because it establishes a manner for the Exchange to treat
affiliated member organizations for purposes of assessing charges or
credits that are based on volume. The provision is equitable because
all member organizations seeking to aggregate their activity are
subject to the same parameters, in accordance with a standard that
recognizes an affiliation as of the month's beginning or close in time
to when the affiliation occurs, provided the member organization
submits a timely request. Moreover, the proposed billing aggregation
language, which would lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is
substantially similar to aggregation language adopted by other
exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that the proposal would serve to reduce
disparity of treatment between member organizations with regard to the
pricing of different services and reduce any potential for confusion on
how activity can be aggregated. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change avoids disparate treatment of member organizations that
have divided their various business activities between separate
corporate entities as compared to member organizations that operate
those business activities within a single corporate entity. The
Exchange further notes that the proposed rule change is

reasonable and is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market by harmonizing the manner by which
the Exchanges permits member organizations to aggregate volume with
other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange notes that NASDAQ, PHLX
and BX all have the same standard that the Exchange is proposing to
adopt.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As stated above,
the proposed rule change, which applies equally to all member
organizations, is intended to reduce the Exchange's administrative
burden in applying volume price discounts for firms which have
requested aggregation with that of an affiliate member organization,
and is substantially similar to rules adopted by other exchanges.
Because the market for order execution and routing is extremely
competitive, member organizations may readily opt to disfavor the
Exchange if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed changes will impair the ability
of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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,\15\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-13 and should be submitted on or before April
29, 2015.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07968 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29014-29017]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64494; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Rebates and Fees in Penny Pilot, NDX and MNX and Non-Penny Pilot
Options

May 13, 2011.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 3, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' 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 modify Rule 7050 governing pricing for
NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's
facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index
options. Specifically, NOM proposes to adopt certain Fees for Execution
of Contracts for a ``Professional'' market participant. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nasdaq.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
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule 7050 governing the rebates and
fees assessed for options orders entered into NOM. Specifically, NASDAQ
is proposing to adopt Professional pricing for Penny Pilot Options,
options on the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol NDX (``NDX'')
and options on the one-tenth value of the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under
the symbol MNX (``MNX'') and All Other Options.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All Other Options includes non-Penny Pilot options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is currently NOM pricing for four separate categories of
market participants: Customer, Firm, Non-NOM Market maker \4\ and NOM
Market Maker.\5\ The Professional category would be an addition to
these existing categories. The term ``Professional'' means any person
or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during
a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).\6\ Today a
Professional is assessed and paid Customer fees and rebates,
respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Non-NOM Market Makers are registered market makers on
another options market that append the market maker designation to
orders routed to NOM.
    \5\ NOM Market Makers must be registered as such pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 2 of the Nasdaq Options Rules, and must also
remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4.
    \6\ See Chapter I, Section I (Definitions). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 63028 (October 1, 2010), 75 FR 62443
(October 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-099); and 63151 (October 21,
2010), 75 FR 66811 (October 29, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-132).
Participants are required to identify Professional orders submitted
electronically by indentifying [sic] them in the customer type
field. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63028 (October 1,
2010) 75 FR 62443 (October 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-099). See NOM
Chapter I, Sec.1 (a)(48).
    \7\ The priority of orders designated as Professional on NOM are
not impacted in the same manner as on other options exchanges which
have a Professional designation because NOM executes orders on a
price/time priority basis, regardless of the designation of the
market participant submitting the order.

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

    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a $0.29 per contract Rebate to
Add Liquidity; \8\ and a $0.45 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity
\9\ for Professionals transacting Penny Pilot Options.\10\ The Exchange
is proposing to adopt a $0.10 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity and
a $0.50 per contract Fee for Removing Liquidity for Professionals
transacting NDX and MNX.\11\ The Exchange is proposing to adopt a $0.20
per contract Fee for Adding Liquidity, and a $0.45 per contract Fee for
Removing Liquidity for Professionals transacting All Other Options. The
Exchange proposes to offer no Rebate to Add Liquidity for Professionals
transacting All Other Options.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An order that adds liquidity is one that is entered into NOM
and rests on the NOM book.
    \9\ An order that removes liquidity is one that is entered into
NOM and that executes against an order resting on the NOM book.
    \10\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the Penny Pilot
Option rates for other market participants.
    \11\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend NDX and MNX rates
for other market participants.
    \12\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the rates for other
market participants in All Other Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the Opening Cross, a Professional would be assessed
the Fee for Removing Liquidity during the Exchange's Opening Cross
similar to Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers and NOM Market Makers.\13\
Professionals would not receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity during the
Exchange's Opening Cross.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NOM does not have any priority rules for the Opening Cross.
    \14\ Today a Professional receives a Rebate to Add Liquidity
during the Exchange's Opening Cross, unless the contra-side is also
a Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to add Professional fees to: (i) raise
revenue for the Exchange; and (ii) eliminate specialized pricing for
Professionals. The Exchange is proposing separate pricing for
Professionals to bring additional revenue to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the increased revenue from the proposal would assist the
Exchange to recoup fixed costs. Additionally, the Exchange seeks to
address the perceived favorable pricing of Professionals, who today are
assessed fees and paid rebates like a Customer. A Professional, unlike
a retail Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that
contain functionality not available to retail Customers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A Professional, defined as a non broker-dealer who places
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average (or more
than one order per minute on average per day), has access to
continuously updated pricing models based on real-time streaming
data, access to multiple markets simultaneously, and other risk
management tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable rebates, dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility
or system which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is equitable to assess Professionals fees
and offer rebates that are less favorable than or equivalent to
Customers but generally more favorable than or equivalent to market
markers \18\ because it has been established that Professionals have
access to more information than a Customer and Professionals do not
bear the obligations of a market maker. It can be argued that
Professionals have the same technological and informational advantages
as broker-dealers trading for their own account. First, a Professional
by definition enters 390 orders per day on average over a calendar
month which the Exchange believes exceeds the number of retail
Customers [sic] in a single day. Second, the Exchange believes that
retail Customers are a source of liquidity in the market, and exchanges
have provided such Customer [sic] favorable pricing in order to attract
such orders.\19\ The Exchange believes that it would be inequitable to
assess higher fees on Customers and offer less rebates to Customers, as
compared to other market participants, because they are unable to
shoulder the burden of such costs as effectively as other market
participants, including a Professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that the proposed Professional Rebate to
Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is greater than the rebate for
a Non-NOM Market Maker but less than the rebate for a NOM Market
Maker. This is explained in greater detail below.
    \19\ The Exchange provides Customers such favorable pricing
notwithstanding the fact that NOM executes orders on a price/time
priority basis, regardless of the designation of the market
participant submitting the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this concept of pricing Professionals
differently than Customers exists today on other markets. The
International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') assesses professionals
different fees than customers. ISE assesses higher taker fees to
professionals as compared to market makers and customers. ISE also
provides professionals a lower priority on its market as compared to
public customers.\20\ The Approval Order states that ISE amended its
priority rules to attract retail investor order flow to its exchange by
leveling the playing field for retail investors over market
professionals and provide competitive pricing.\21\ The Approval Order
also noted that professionals are more sophisticated than retail
investors.\22\ While NOM does not have such priority rules because it
executes orders according to price-time priority, with no distinctions
made with regard to account designation, NOM currently offers
Professionals the pricing advantages of a Customer. NOM believes that
for the same reasons the Commission permitted ISE to amend its rules so
that professional orders would not be granted special priority and
would be assessed the same fees as broker-dealer transactions, the
Exchange should likewise be permitted to assess different fees for
Professionals and Customers.\23\ While priority is a reason to
distinguish Customers and Professionals, the Exchange believes that
pricing alone could produce the same unintended advantage to
Professionals as noted in the Approval Order.\24\ The Commission also
noted in the Approval Order that the customers who enter more than 390
orders per day on average during a calendar month are using the
exchange's facilities to place approximately 8000 orders, on average
one order for every minute of every trading day, over the course of the
month and nearly 100,000 orders per year. The Commission found that it
was consistent with the Act for ISE to allocate to customers who
participate in the market at this level of activity--which enables them
to compete with non-Customers who are registered broker-dealers--the
same transaction

fees that it charges to such non-Customers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26) (``Approval
Order'').
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26).
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26). Since the
Approval Order, ISE has filed additional pricing changes.
    \24\ The Approval Order notes that professionals have access to
information and advantages similar to broker-dealers and by both
amending the execution rules and fee schedule, professional account
holders participate on equal terms with broker-dealer orders and
marker maker quotes. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287
(January 23, 2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59287 (January 23,
2009), 75 FR 62443 (October 1, 2010) (SR-ISE-2006-26) at page 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its pricing to attract Customer
orders and create a competitive market. The Exchange believes that
establishing separate pricing for a Professional, which ranges between
that of a Customer and market maker,\26\ accomplishes this objective.
The Exchange believes the role of the retail Customer in the
marketplace is distinct from that of the Professional and the Exchange
believes that its fee proposal accounts for this distinction and prices
each market participant according to their roles and assumes their
obligations. A market maker has the obligation to make continuous
markets, engage in 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 course of dealings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange notes that the proposed Professional Rebate to
Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is greater than the rebate for
a Non-NOM Market Maker but less than the rebate for a NOM Market
Maker. This is explained in greater detail below.
    \27\ See NOM Chapter VII, Sections 5, 6, 9 and 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that Professionals, who are considered
sophisticated algorithmic traders, utilize the advantaged Customer
pricing they receive to effectively compete with market makers and
broker-dealers \28\ without the obligations of either. The Exchange
believes Professionals should not be entitled to the same favorable fee
treatment as a Customer, which such Professionals rely on as a means to
effectively compete with other market participants. This was not the
intent of the Exchange in providing Customer favorable pricing. Market
makers and broker-dealers provide valuable liquidity to the marketplace
without the advantage of Customer pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Broker-dealers pay registration and membership fees in
self-regulatory organizations (``SRO'') and incur costs to comply
and assure that their associated persons comply with the Act and SRO
rules. A broker-dealer on NOM is classified as a Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above and the basis provided hereafter,
the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing is not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange is seeking to continue to encourage
the participation of Customers, other than those Customers who exceed
the threshold requirement of the Professional definition. The Exchange
believes that those who meet the Professional definition have certain
technological and informational advantages over retail Customers which
combined with favorable pricing allows them to compete with market
makers and broker-dealers and for this reason the proposed pricing is
not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed NOM Professional fees and
rebates are equitable in that the Exchange currently differentiates
between options classes and categories of market participants for
purposes of pricing. The existing differentiation recognizes the
differing contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment
on the Exchange, as well as the differing mix of orders entered. For
example, the Exchange assesses different fees for Penny Pilot
transactions and non-Penny Pilot transactions. In addition, some market
participants, such as market makers, have obligations pursuant to
Exchange rules which the Exchange recognizes in its pricing.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Professional rebates and
fees are both equitable and reasonable for the reasons outlined below.
With respect to Penny Pilot options, the Exchange is assessing the same
Fee for Removing Liquidity as other market participants. The Exchange
believes that the proposed fee is reasonable and equitable because all
market participants are equally assessed a Fee for Removing Liquidity
in Penny Pilot options. There is no change to the Professional Fee for
Removing Liquidity; the fee is the same as that assessed today.
    With respect to the Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot options,
the Exchange believes the proposed rate is reasonable because the
proposed rate is less than that paid to Customers and NOM Market
Makers, which is similar in concept to the rebates offered at NASDAQ
OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').\29\ In addition, Chicago Board Options
Exchange Incorporated (``CBOE'') assesses Professionals more than
Customers, who incur no fee.\30\ Further, the Exchange believes the
proposed rebate is equitable because providing Customers and NOM Market
Makers with higher rebates will continue to bolster liquidity, and
attract more order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market
participants, including Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Phlx's Fee Schedule. The professional executing a
single contra-side order on Phlx receives a lower rebate to add
liquidity as compared a Phlx market maker (defined as a directed
participant, specialist, ROT, SQT or RSQT). Also, the professional
executing a complex order receives no rebate to add liquidity, while
a customer receives a rebate of $0.24/$0.25 respectively.
    \30\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated above that it proposes to assess Professionals
fees and offer rebates that are less favorable than or equivalent to
Customers but generally more favorable than or equivalent to market
markers. The one exception in this proposal is with respect to the
Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options. The
Exchange has explained above why it believes that providing a
Professional a greater rebate as compared to the Non-NOM Market maker
is equitable. With respect to the NOM Market Maker, the Exchange
proposes a lower rebate, by $0.01 per contract, as compared to a
Professional because the Exchange seeks to continue to incentivize the
NOM Market Maker. The Exchange believes that this rebate is equitable
because the NOM Market Maker has obligations that the Professional does
not bear.
    With respect to the NDX and MNX the Exchange is proposing to assess
Professionals the same fees that are assessed Customers and pay
Professionals the same rebate that are paid to Customers today. The
Exchange believes that this is both reasonable and equitable because,
other than NOM Market Makers, all market participants are assessed the
same fees and paid the same rebates in NDX and MNX. With respect to NDX
and MNX there is no fee change to the Professional as compared to the
rebates received and fees paid today.
    The Exchange believes that the Fee for Removing Liquidity for a
Professional in All Other Options is both equitable because it is the
same rate for all market participants.\31\ There is no change to the
Professional Fee for Removing Liquidity; the fee is the same as that
assessed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ All market participants are assessed $0.45 per contract as
a Fee for Removing Liquidity in All Other Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Fee for Adding Liquidity is
equitable because Professionals engage in trading activity similar to
that conducted by market makers. For example, Professionals continue to
join bids and offers on the Exchange and thus compete for incoming
order flow. Professionals do so in direct competition with the
Exchange's market makers, but with the distinct advantage of generally
receiving fees and rebates akin to Customers. Currently, on NOM
Professionals enjoy a higher rebate than NOM Market Makers, who have
quoting obligations to the market. The Exchange believes it is not only
equitable but reasonable to provide Fees and Rebates

for Adding Liquidity to Professionals that are within the range of non-
NOM Market Makers and NOM Market Makers.
    This concept is similar in approach to NYSE Amex, Inc. (''NYSE
Amex'') CBOE, Phlx and ISE. On each of these venues, the fees paid by
professionals and rebates received by professionals are generally in
between Customers, Market Makers and other broker-dealers.\32\ The
Exchange believes that assessing a Professional a higher Fee for Adding
Liquidity than a Customer, but lower than all other broker-dealers
would put the Professional on a more equal footing with market makers
and other broker-dealers regarding fees paid for transacting on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See NYSE Amex's Fee Schedule, CBOE's Fees Schedule, Phlx's
Fee Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange assesses all market participants the same Fee for
Removing Liquidity, only differentiated by Penny Pilot, Non-Penny
Pilot, NDX and MNX. The Exchange believes that the proposed Fee for
Adding Liquidity is reasonable because it is similar to the transaction
fee assessed by NYSE Amex for an electronic Professional
transaction.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See NYSE Amex's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Rebate to Add Liquidity in All Other Options,
the Exchange believes that the rebate is equitable because only
Customers receive a rebate. The Professional, similar to all other
market participants, would receive no rebate. The Exchange believes
that offering a rebate to Customers only would attract more order flow
to the Exchange for the benefit [sic] all market participants. For this
same reason, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to not pay a
Professional a Rebate to Add Liquidity during the Exchange's Opening
Cross and to assess a Professional a Fee for Removing Liquidity during
the Exchange's Opening Cross. The Exchange believes that a Professional
would benefit, similar to other market participants, from the Customer
order flow. In addition, this proposal would allow a Customer to
receive a Rebate to Add Liquidity during the Exchange's Opening Cross
if a Professional was on the contra-side of the transaction.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of
nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable
market participants, including Professionals, can readily, and do, send
order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular exchange to be excessive or rebates paid to be inadequate.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates and fees are
competitive, fair and similar with rebates and fees in place on other
exchanges for Professionals. The Exchange believes that this
competitive marketplace impacts the rebates and fees present on the
Exchange today and substantially influences the proposals set forth
above.

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

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

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

    No written comments were 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 \34\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \35\
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \35\ 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-NASDAQ-2011-066 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-NASDAQ-2011-066. 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,\36\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-066 and should be submitted on or before
June 9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at NASDAQ, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12286 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P