[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10300-10305]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77211; File No. SR-EDGX-2016-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees as Applicable to the Equity Options Platform

February 23, 2016.
    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 February 10, 2016, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On November 1, 2015, the Exchange adopted an initial fee schedule
establishing fees applicable to Members trading options on and using
services provided by to its equity options platform (``EDGX
Options'').\6\ As a new options exchange, the Exchange aimed to attract
order flow by offering market participants a competitive and simplified
pricing structure. Therefore, the Exchange did not initially propose to
implement a tiered pricing structure under which it would provide
enhanced rebates or reduced fees based on the Member's monthly trading
activity. Nor did the Exchange propose to implement ``maker-taker''
pricing (i.e., providing a rebate to the side of the transaction that
added liquidity and a fee to the side of the transaction that removed
liquidity).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76453 (November 17,
2015), 80 FR 72999 (November 23, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-56). On
December 1, 2015, the Exchange amended the EDGX Options fee schedule
to modify pricing for orders routed away and executed at various
away options exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76708 (December 21, 2015), 80 FR 80832 (December 28, 2015) (SR-EDGX-
2015-63).
    \7\ The Exchange does not propose to implement maker-taker
pricing in this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has experienced an increase in order flow since it
commenced trading in November 2015 \8\ and now seeks to amend its fee
schedule in order to incentivize Members to send additional order flow
to the Exchange.\9\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend its fee
schedule to amend the Standard Rates and Fee Codes and Associated Fees
Table to delete or update existing fee codes as well as to add two new
fee codes. The Exchange also proposes to adopt pricing tiers under
proposed footnotes 1 and 2, Customer Volume Tiers and Market Maker
Volume Tiers, respectively. Under the proposed tiers, Customers \10\ or
Market Makers \11\ that achieve certain volume criteria may qualify for
reduced fees or enhanced rebates. As a result of the proposed tiers,
the Exchange proposes to add definitions of ADV, ADAV, and TCV, as
described below, to the Definitions section of its fee schedule.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend its Marketing Fee to increase
the fee for Non-Penny Pilot Securities \12\ from $0.65 per contract to
$0.70 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Market Volume Summary, available at http://www.batsoptions.com/market_summary/.
    \9\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee change on
February 1, 2016, in SR-EDGX-2016-05. On February 3, 2016, the
Exchange withdrew SR-EDGX-2016-05 and submitted SR-EDGX-2016-07. On
February 9, 2016, the Exchange withdrew SR-EDGX-2016-07 and
submitted this filing.
    \10\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction identified
by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), excluding any transaction for a
Broker Dealer or a ``Professional'' as defined in Exchange Rule
16.1.
    \11\ The term ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is registered with the Exchange as a Market
Maker as defined in Rule 16.1(a)(37).
    \12\ The term ``Non-Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those
issues that are not Penny Pilot Securities quoted pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Transaction Fees
    The Exchange currently maintains a fee structure under which
standard rates are applied, the amount of which depend on whether the
order is for a Customer, Non-Customer,\13\ or Market Maker as well as
the capacity of the order with which such order trades.\14\ The
Exchange now proposes to amend the Standard Rates table, which
summarizes the main fees and rebates applicable to trading on the
Exchange, including tiered pricing, as well as the Fee Codes and
Associated Fees table, which provides detailed rates for all types of
executions occurring on the Exchange and of orders that have been
routed to other options exchanges, to delete or update existing fee
codes as well as to add two new fee codes. The result of these
amendments would result in a fee structure under which the standard
rate that applies would depend solely on whether the order is for a
Customer, Non-Customer, or Market Maker, and not the capacity of the
contra-side order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Non-Customer'' applies to any transaction that
is not a Customer order.
    \14\ The standard rates and applicable fee codes apply unless a
Member's transaction is assigned a fee code other than a standard
fee code. A fee code other than a standard fee code is only applied
to a Member's transaction that is routed to and executed on another
options exchange or where it is to participate in the EDGX Options
opening process under Exchange Rule 21.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customer. Currently, neither side of a transaction is charged a fee
where both sides trade in a Customer capacity. Such Customer orders
yield either fee code PA or NA where they add liquidity and PR or NR
where they remove liquidity, depending on whether the order is in a

Penny Pilot Security \15\ or not. An order that trades in a Customer
capacity receives a rebate of $0.21 per contract where it executes
against a contra-side order that trades in a Non-Customer capacity.
Such Customer orders yield either fee code PY or NY where they add
liquidity and PC or NC where they remove liquidity, depending on
whether the order is in a Penny Pilot Security or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those issues
that are quoted pursuant to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the pricing for Customer orders by
eliminating fee codes PA, NA, PR, NR, PY, and NY. Fee codes PA and NA
are currently appended to Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities and
Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively that add liquidity against a
contra-side Customer order and are charged no fee. Likewise, fee codes
PR and NR are currently appended to Customer orders in Penny Pilot
Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively that remove
liquidity against a contra-side Customer order and are charged no fee.
Fee codes PY and NY are currently appended to Customer orders in Penny
Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively that add
liquidity against a contra-side Non-Customer order and receive a rebate
of $0.21 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to update fee codes
PC and NC, which are currently appended to Customer orders in Penny
Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively that
remove liquidity against a contra-side Non-Customer order and receive a
rebate of $0.21 per contract.
    As a result of the above amendments, fee code PC would be appended
to all Customer orders in Penny Pilot Securities. Likewise, fee code NC
would be appended to all Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities.
Customer orders that yield fee codes PC or NC would receive a rebate of
$0.01 per contract, rather than $0.21 per contract, regardless of the
counter party and whether the Customer order adds or removes liquidity.
    Market Maker. Currently, an order that trades in a Market Maker
capacity is charged a fee of $0.21 per contract where it executes
against a contra-side order that trades in a Customer capacity. Such
Market Maker orders yield either fee code PM or NM where they add
liquidity and PP or NP where they remove liquidity, depending on
whether the order is in a Penny Pilot Security or not.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the pricing for Customer orders by
updating fee codes PM, NM, PP, and NP. Fee code PM and NM are currently
appended to Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny
Pilot Securities, respectively that add liquidity against contra-side
Customer orders and are charged a fee of $0.21 per contract. As
amended, fee code PM would be appended to Market Maker orders in Penny
Pilot Securities. Likewise, fee code NM would be appended to Market
Maker orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities. Market Maker orders that
yield fee codes PM or NM would be charged a fee of $0.19 per contract,
rather than $0.21 per contract, regardless of the counter party and
whether the Customer order adds or removes liquidity.
    Fee codes PP and NP are currently appended to Market Maker orders
in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively
that remove liquidity against contra-side Customer orders and are
charged a fee of $0.21 per contract. As discussed in more detail below,
the Exchange proposes to amend fee codes PP and NP and to re-purpose
such fee codes to apply instead to certain Professional orders.
Therefore, Market Maker orders that remove liquidity would yield fee
codes PM or NM and be charged a fee of $0.19 per contract, rather than
$0.21 per contract, regardless of the counter party and whether the
Customer order adds or removes liquidity.
    Non-Customer. Currently, for Penny Pilot Securities, an order that
trades in a Non-Customer capacity, other than a Market Maker order, is
charged a fee of $0.46 per contract where it executes against a contra-
side order that trades in a Customer capacity. Such Non-Customer orders
in Penny Pilot Securities yield fee code PO where they add liquidity
and PQ where they remove liquidity. Currently, Non-Customer orders in
Non-Penny Pilot Securities are charged a fee of $0.86 per contract and
yield fee code NO where they add liquidity and NQ where they remove
liquidity. Neither side of a transaction is currently charged a fee
where both sides trade in a Non-Customer capacity. Such Non-Customer
orders yield either fee code PF or NF where they add liquidity and PN
or NN where they remove liquidity, depending on whether the order is in
a Penny Pilot Security or not.
    Orders that trade in a Non-Customer Capacity include Broker
Dealer,\16\ Firm,\17\ Joint Back Office,\18\ Professional,\19\ and Away
Marker Maker.\20\ The Exchange proposes to amend fee codes PP, NP, PO,
PQ, NO, NQ, PF, NF, PN, and NN to apply to the specific capacities that
a Non-Customer order may represent. Each of the proposed amendments are
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``Broker Dealer'' applies to any order for the
account of a broker dealer, including a foreign broker dealer, that
clears in the Customer range at the OCC.
    \17\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction identified by
a Member for clearing in the Firm range at the OCC, excluding any
Joint Back Office transaction.
    \18\ The term ``Joint Back Office'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Firm range at the OCC
that is identified with an origin code as Joint Back Office. A Joint
Back Office participant is a Member that maintains a Joint Back
Office arrangement with a clearing broker-dealer.
    \19\ The term ``Professional'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member as such pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \20\ The term ``Away Market Maker'' applies to any transaction
identified by a Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the
OCC, where such Member is not registered with the Exchange as a
Market Maker, but is registered as a market maker on another options
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fee Codes PP and NP. As stated above, fee codes PP and NP
are currently appended to Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities
and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively that remove liquidity
against contra-side Customer orders and are charged a fee of $0.21 per
contract. The Exchange proposes to amend fee codes PP and NP to instead
apply to Professional orders. As amended, fee code PP would appended
Professional orders in Penny Pilot Securities regardless of the counter
party and whether the Customer order adds or removes liquidity. Orders
that yield fee code PP would be charged a fee of $0.48 per contract.
Fee code NP would be amended to apply to Professional orders in Non-
Penny Pilot Securities regardless of the counter party and whether the
order adds or removes liquidity. Orders that yield fee code NP would be
charged a fee of $0.75 per contract.
     Fee Codes PO and PQ. An order in a Penny Pilot Security
that trades in a Non-Customer capacity, other than a Market Maker, is
charged a fee of $0.46 per contract where it executes against a contra-
side order that trades in a Customer capacity. Such orders yield fee
code PO where they add liquidity and PQ where they remove liquidity.
The Exchange proposes to amend fee code PO to instead apply to Joint
Back Office orders. Fee code PO would be amended to apply to Joint Back
Office orders in Penny Pilot Securities, regardless of the counter
party and whether the order adds or removes liquidity. Also, orders
that yield fee code PO would be charged a fee of $0.48

per contract, rather than $0.46. As a result of the proposed amendments
to fee code PO and the general proposal in this filing to apply fees
regardless of whether orders add or remove liquidity, fee code PQ is no
longer necessary and the Exchange proposes to remove it from its fee
schedule.
     Fee Code NO and NQ. Non-Customer orders in Non-Penny Pilot
Securities are charged a fee of $0.86 per contract and yield fee code
NO where they add liquidity and NQ where they remove liquidity against
a contra-side Customer order. Similar to fee code PO, the Exchange
proposes to amend fee code NO to instead apply to Joint Back Office
orders. Fee code NO would be amended to apply to Joint Back Office
orders in Penny Pilot Securities, regardless of the counter party and
whether the order adds or removes liquidity. Also, orders that yield
fee code NO would be charged a fee of $0.75 per contract, rather than
$0.86 per contract. As a result of the proposed amendments to fee code
NO and the general proposal in this filing to apply fees regardless of
whether orders add or remove liquidity, fee code NQ is no longer
necessary and the Exchange proposes to remove it from its fee schedule.
     Fee Codes PF, NF, PN, and NN. Neither side of a
transaction is currently charged a fee where both sides trade in a Non-
Customer capacity. Such Non-Customer orders yield either fee code PF or
NF where they add liquidity and PN or NN where they remove liquidity.
Fee codes PF and PN are applied to Non-Customer orders in Penny Pilot
Securities and NF and NN are applied to orders in Non-Penny Pilot
Securities. The Exchange proposes to amend fee codes PF and NF to
instead apply to Firm orders and fee codes PN and NN to instead apply
to Away Market Maker orders. As amended, fee code PF would apply to
Firm orders in Penny Pilot Securities, regardless of the counter party
and whether the order adds or removes liquidity. Orders that yield fee
code PF would no longer be free and would be subject to a charge of
$0.45 per contract. Fee code NF would be amended to apply to Firm
orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities, regardless of the counter party
and whether the order adds or removes liquidity. Orders that yield fee
code NF would no longer be free and would be subject to a charge of
$0.75 per contract. Fee code PN would be amended to apply to Away
Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities, regardless of the
counter party and whether the order adds or removes liquidity. Orders
that yield fee code PN would no longer be free and would be subject to
a charge of $0.48 per contract. Fee code NN would be amended to apply
to Away Market Maker orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities, regardless
of the counter party and whether the order adds or removes liquidity.
Orders that yield fee code NN would no longer be free and would be
subject to a charge of $0.75 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to add two new fee codes to its Fee
Codes and Associated Fees table to apply to Broker Dealer orders.
Proposed fee code NB would apply to Broker Dealer orders in Non-Penny
Pilot Securities and proposed fee code PB would apply to Broker Dealer
orders in Penny Pilot Securities. Orders that yield fee code NB would
be charged a fee of $0.75 per contract. Orders that yield fee code PB
would be charged a fee of $0.48 per contract. Fee codes NB and BB would
be appended to Broker Dealer orders regardless of the capacity of the
counter party or whether they add or remove liquidity.
Proposed Tiers and Definitions
    Initially, the Exchange did not propose to implement a tiered
pricing structure under which it would provide enhanced rebates or
reduced fees based on the Member's monthly trading activity. The
Exchange now proposes to adopt two pricing tiers under proposed
footnotes 1 and 2, Customer Volume Tiers and Market Maker Volume Tiers,
respectively. Under the proposed tiers, Customers and Market Makers
that achieve certain volume criteria may qualify for reduced fees or
enhanced rebates.
    Definitions. As a result of the proposed tiers, the Exchange
proposes to add definitions of ADV, ADAV, and TCV to the Definitions
section of its fee schedule. The proposed definitions are designed to
provide transparency with regard to the criteria necessary to achieve
the proposed Customer Volume Tier and Market Maker Volume Tier and are
based on and nearly identical to those currently provided for in the
fee schedule for the equity options platform operated by BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX Options'').\21\ ``ADAV'' would be defined as the average
daily added volume calculated as the number of contracts added and
``ADV'' would be defined as the average daily volume calculated as the
number of contracts added or removed, combined, per day. The
definitions of ADAV and ADV would further state that ADAV and ADV would
be calculated on a monthly basis and would exclude contracts added or
removed on any day that the Exchange's system experienced a disruption
that lasted for more than 60 minutes during regular trading hours
(``Exchange System Disruption'') and on any day with a scheduled early
market close. The definitions would further state that routed contracts
would also not be included in ADAV or ADV calculation. The definitions
would also permit, with prior notice to the Exchange, a Member to
aggregate their ADAV or ADV with other Members that control, are
controlled by, or are under common control with such Member. ``TCV''
would be defined as the total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding volume
on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System Disruption
and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See the BZX Options' fee schedule available at http://www.batsoptions.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customer Volume Tiers. As described above, fee code PC and NC would
be appended to all Customer orders in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot
Securities, respectively and would receive a rebate of $0.01 per
contract. The proposed Customer Volume Tier in footnote 1 shall consist
of four separate tiers, each providing an enhanced rebate to Member's
Customer orders that yield fee codes PC or NC upon satisfying monthly
volume criteria required by the respective tier. The amount of the
rebate is in relation to the volume required to achieve their tier. The
rebates and required criteria available to Member's Customer orders
that yield fee codes PC or NC are as follows:
     Tier 1. A rebate of $0.10 per contract will be provided
where the Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
0.20% of average TCV.
     Tier 2. A rebate of $0.16 per contract will be provided
where the Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
0.30% of average TCV.
     Tier 3. A rebate of $0.21 per contract will be provided
where the Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
0.50% of average TCV.
     Tier 4. A rebate of $0.25 per contract will be provided
where the Member has an ADV in Customer orders equal to or greater than
0.80% of average TCV.
    Market Maker Volume Tiers. As described above, fee codes PM and NM
would be appended to Market Maker orders in Penny Pilot Securities and
Non-Penny Pilot Securities,

respectively. Market Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM would
be charged a fee of $0.19 per contract. The proposed Market Maker
Volume Tier in footnote 2 shall consist of four separate tiers, each
providing a reduced fee or rebate to Member's Market Maker orders that
yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying monthly volume criteria
required by the respective tier. The amount of the reduced fee or
rebate is in relation to the volume required to achieve their tier. The
rebates and required criteria available to Member's Market Maker orders
that yield fee codes PM or NM are as follows:
     Tier 1. A reduced fee of $0.16 per contract will be
provided where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or
greater than 0.05%.
     Tier 2. A reduced fee of $0.07 per contract will be
provided where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or
greater than 0.30%.
     Tier 3. A reduced fee of $0.02 per contract will be
provided where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or
greater than 0.70%.
     Tier 4. A rebate of $0.01 per contract will be provided
where the Member has an ADV in Market Maker orders equal to or greater
than 1.10%.
Marketing Fees
    The Exchange assesses a Marketing Fee to all Market Makers for
contracts they execute in their assigned classes when the contra-party
to the execution is a Customer. The Marketing Fee is charged only in a
Market Maker's assigned classes because it is in these classes that the
Market Maker has the general obligation to attract order flow to the
Exchange. Each Primary Market Maker (``PMM'') \22\ and Directed Market
Maker (``DMM'') \23\ have a Marketing Fee pool into which the Exchange
deposits the applicable per-contract Marketing Fee. For orders directed
to DMMs, the applicable Marketing Fees are allocated to the DMM pool.
For non-directed orders, the applicable Marketing Fees are allocated to
the PMM pool. All Market Makers that participated in such transaction
pay the applicable Marketing Fees to the Exchange, which will allocate
such funds to the Market Maker that controls the distribution of the
marketing fee pool. Each month the Market Maker provides instruction to
the Exchange describing how the Exchange is to distribute the Marketing
Fees in the pool to the order flow provider, who submit as agent,
Customer orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Exchange Rule 21.8(g).
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 21.8(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of the Marketing Fee depends upon whether the affected
option class is a Penny Pilot Security. A Marketing Fee of $0.25 per
contract is assessed to Market Makers for transactions in Penny Pilot
Securities. A Marketing Fee of $0.65 per contract is currently assessed
to Market Makers for transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Securities. The
Exchange now proposes to increase the Marketing Fee assessed to Market
Makers for transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Securities from $0.65 per
contract to $0.70 per contract. For option classes that are Non-Penny
Pilot Securities, the Exchange's proposed Marketing Fee is equal to
other options exchanges, such as PHLX, which also charges $0.70 per
contract.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') fee schedule available
at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=PHLXPricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\25\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\26\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposed standard rates are equitable and
reasonable. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants may readily send order flow to any of twelve
competing venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive. As
a new options exchange, the proposed fee structure remains intended to
attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a
competitive and simplified pricing structure. To that end, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable to remove fee codes for orders that add and
remove liquidity, as the rates are the same whether an order adds or
removes liquidity under both the prior fee structure and the proposed
fee structure. Accordingly, having one fee code dependent on the
capacity of the order and whether the issue is a Penny Pilot Security
or not will result in a simpler fee schedule.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and non-
discriminatory to charge fees to Non-Customers (including Market Makers
other than those qualifying for Market Maker Volume Tier 4) and provide
a rebate to Customers under the proposed fee structure. Non-Customer
accounts generally engage in increased trading activity as compared to
Customer accounts. This level of trading activity draws on a greater
amount of Exchange system resources than that of Customers. Simply, the
more orders submitted to the Exchange, the more messages sent to and
received from the Exchange, and the more Exchange system resources
utilized. This level of trading activity by Non-Customer accounts
results in greater ongoing operational costs to the Exchange.\27\ As
such, the Exchange generally aims to recover its costs by fees to Non-
Customers executed on the Exchange. Sending orders to and trading on
the Exchange are entirely voluntary. Under these circumstances,
Exchange transaction fees must be competitive to attract order flow,
execute orders, and grow its market. Other options exchanges also
provide for varying rates based on the capacity of the order.\28\ As
such, the Exchange believes its proposed trading fees are fair and
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange, however, does not propose to assess ongoing
fess for EDGX Options market data or fees related to order
cancellation.
    \28\ See Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') fee schedule available
at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=PHLXPricing (charging no
fee to customer orders and variable rates non-customer orders). See
also Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc. fee schedule available at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=BXOptionsPricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is equitable, reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge Market Makers lower fees than other
Non-Customers who participate on the Exchange. The proposed
differentiation between Market Makers and other market participants,
such as Broker Dealers and Firms, recognizes the differing
contributions made to the liquidity and trading environment on the
Exchange by these market participants. Market Makers, unlike other
market participants, have obligations to the market and regulatory
requirements,\29\ which normally do not apply to other market
participants. 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 such course of dealings. On the other hand, other
Non-Customers do not have such obligations on the Exchange. For the
same reasons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide an
additional incentive to Market Makers in the form of the proposed
Market Maker Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Exchange Rule 22.5, Obligations of Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide a rebate to Customer orders that
execute on the Exchange. The securities markets generally, and the
Exchange in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for
investors and develop various features within the market structure for
Customer benefit. Providing a rebate to Customers is designed to
encourage Customers to add liquidity to the Exchange. In turn,
increased liquidity is beneficial to all other market participants on
the Exchange that seek executions against those Customer orders. As
such, the Exchange believes the proposed Customer transaction pricing
is equitably allocated, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. For
the same reasons, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide an
additional incentive to Customers in the form of the proposed Customer
Volume Tiers.
    Although the proposal will result in an increased fee for certain
participants, including all Non-Customers other than Firms and Market
Makers in Penny Pilot Securities, or will result in a lower rebate for
others, namely all Customers other than those qualifying for Customer
Volume Tier 3 or 4, the Exchange still believes that its proposed
pricing structure is fair and equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly
discriminatory. As noted above, while the Exchange is seeking to
encourage additional participation particularly from those representing
Customer orders and Market Maker orders, the Exchange believes that its
pricing as a whole remains competitive with other options exchanges,
offering rates that are generally equal to or better than incumbent
exchanges. Additional revenue earned from the increases to pricing will
be used to fund additional initiatives and incentives that are all
intended to further grow EDGX Options, which, as noted above, is a new
options exchange. As has also been noted above, the proposed changes in
many ways simplify the pricing structure of EDGX Options. Further, the
proposed pricing also eliminates uncertainty that came with variable
rates that were based on counter-party. Instead, the proposed fees and
rebates provide certainty to market participants regarding the cost of
trading in certain capacities and in both Penny Pilot Securities and
Non-Penny Pilot Securities. Also, the proposed fee structure does
provide cost savings for some participants, including all Non-Customers
in Non-Penny Pilot Securities (when executing against Customers given
that executions against Non-Customers were free) and Market Makers.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees
and rebates to replace the Exchange's initial fee structure for
executions on the Exchange is fair and equitable, reasonable, and not
unfairly discriminatory.
Proposed Tiers and Definitions
    Volume-based rebates such as those currently maintained on the
Exchange have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and
are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably
related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with
higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity
provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The proposed
Customer Volume Tiers and Market Maker Volume Tiers are intended to
incentivize Members to send additional orders to the Exchange in an
effort to qualify for the enhanced rebate available by the respective
tier.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are reasonable, fair
and equitable, and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth with
respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such change will
either incentivize participants to further contribute to market
quality. The Exchange also believes that the proposed tiered pricing
structure is consistent with pricing previously offered by the Exchange
for its equity securities trading platform as well as options
competitors of the Exchange and does not represent a significant
departure from such pricing structures.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed definitions of ADV, ADAV
and TCV are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory as
they are based on the rules of the Exchange's affiliated options
exchange, BZX Options, and will provide transparency to Members
regarding the calculations used to determine volume levels for purposes
of the proposed tiered pricing model.
Marketing Fees
    The Exchange notes that the U.S. options markets are highly
competitive, and the marketing fee is intended to provide an incentive
for Market Makers to enter into marketing agreements with Members so
that they will provide order flow to the Exchange. The marketing fee is
charged only in a Market Maker's assigned classes because it is in
these classes that the Market Maker has the general obligation to
attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed increase to marketing fees for Non-Penny Pilot Securities is
equitably allocated and reasonable because it will enhance the
Exchange's competitive position and will result in increased liquidity
on the Exchange, thereby providing more of an opportunity for customers
to receive best executions. The Exchange also believes that its
proposed increase to the marketing fee for Non-Penny Pilot Securities
is reasonable since the amount of the Exchange's marketing fee is the
same as other exchanges for Non-Penny Pilot Securities.\30\ Further, as
the marketing fee will be applied to all Market Makers, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee is not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 24 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its fee schedule
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant
departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing
offered by the Exchange's competitors. Rather, the proposal is a
competitive proposal that is seeking to further the growth of the
Exchange. The Exchange has structured its proposed fees and rebates to
attract certain additional order flow from Market Makers and Customers,
however, as noted above, the Exchange believes that its pricing for all
capacities is competitive with that offered by other options exchanges.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed tiered pricing
structure burdens competition, but instead, enhances competition as it
is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange by
incentivizing certain

participants to increase their participation on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that its program of marketing fees, which is
similar to marketing fee programs that have previously been implemented
on other options exchanges, will enhance the Exchange's competitive
position and will result in increased liquidity on the Exchange,
thereby providing more of an opportunity for customers to receive best
executions.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \31\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGX-2016-10 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-EDGX-2016-10. 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-EDGX-2016-10 and should be
submitted on or before March 21, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04249 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20701-20702]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4487-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

North Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Carolina

(FEMA-4487-DR), dated March 25, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 25, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
North Carolina resulting from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of North Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program throughout the
State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gracia B. Szczech, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for all
areas in the State of North Carolina.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-07848 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32226]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0086]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that by letter dated April 4, 2022,
BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to make permanent a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts
232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger
Trains and Equipment; End-Of-Train Devices), and 229 (Railroad
Locomotive Safety Standards). The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-
2016-0086.
    Specifically, BNSF requests to transition the current test waiver
in this docket to a permanent waiver in which relief is granted from
Sec.  232.205(c)(1)(iii), Class I brake test-initial terminal
inspection, and Sec.  229.29(b), Air brake system calibration,
maintenance, and testing, related to air flow method (AFM) indicator
calibration intervals. The existing relief allows BNSF, CSX
Transportation, Canadian National Railway, and Kansas City Southern
Railway Company to test extending the AFM test intervals from 92 days
to 184 days on locomotives equipped with the New York Air Brake CCB-II
air brake systems. In support of its request, BNSF states that AFM
calibration performance has been greatly improved over the lifetime of
the test waiver and that the AFM test waiver committee has concluded
that 184-day calibration significantly improves air brake system
quality and offers additional benefits.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by July 11, 2022 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-11377 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17726-17727]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7572]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Euro Solar Parks, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

March 28, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Euro Solar Parks, Inc. (``Euro Solar'') because of

possible manipulative conduct occurring in the market for the company's
stock. Euro Solar is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and OTC Link
under the ticker symbol ESLP.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
March 28, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 8, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7572 Filed 3-28-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


J-23-0002 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 J-23-0002 Sanitized Biotech Form (linked)
 J-23-0002 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 J-23-0002 Sanitized Risk Assessment (attached)


_____________________

Ex Parte Meeting Summary:  Ozone NAAQS

Date:  December 14, 2007, 12:00 – 1:00 pm.

Attendees:

Visitor:

Dr. Anne E. Smith

Vice President

CRA International

1201 F Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, DC  20004-1204

202-662-3800

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
EPA attendees:

George Gray, ORD

Pamela Williams, ORD

Summary of discussion:

Dr. Smith discussed several of the technical aspects of the risk
assessment that EPA performed as part of the proposed NAAQS rule for
ozone.  This discussion was within the context of the comments that she
had submitted during the public comment period (which she distributed
during the meeting).

In particular, she discussed the differences between EPA’s methodology
for estimating mortality risks above policy relevant background using
2002 and 2004 air quality data (Figure 5-15 from EPA Staff Paper) and
estimates that she has derived of mortality risk when the maximum 8-hour
average exceeds 70 ppb using an average of 2002 and 2004 air quality
data (Figure 4 in her comments).  Based on her re-analysis of the data,
she concluded that the percent of total non-accidental mortality under
the current standard that is attributable to days when the maximum
8-hour average ozone rises above 70 ppb is relatively small, so that the
current standard already provides significant protection against ozone
below the standard down to 70 ppb.  She also commented that it is more
appropriate to use the posterior credible intervals from the Bell et al.
study from each city, rather than the national average estimate, when
performing these calculations.

Additionally, Dr. Smith discussed some of the limitations of EPA’s
analysis for estimating the Policy Relevant Background (PRB).  For
example, she indicated that the GEOS-CHEM model that was used by EPA is
a global model with a very large grid that does not account for the
variability in ozone concentrations across sites, which results in an
underestimate of the average and peak concentrations.  She also
indicated that EPA’s approach does not include potential sources of
ozone from Canada or Mexico.  Aside from some technical concerns she has
with the new approach used by EPA (versus that used in 1987), she also
indicated that EPA’s risk estimates are very sensitive to the PRB
assumption (Appendix C in her comments), and that the finding of
increased risk over time is just due to changing assumptions.  She also
presented an analysis she performed of the percent reduction in EPA’s
risk estimates when computed using PRB assumptions based on Trinidad
head monitored ozone levels (she indicated that this site is viewed as
not having any US contribution) rather than based on GEOS-CHEM model
results (Figure 5 in her comments).  Based on the sensitivity of the
risk estimates to the PRB assumption, she indicated that the tightening
the current standard might be very difficult or impossible to attain in
some areas.


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 26725]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1838-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated May 15, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 15, 2009.

    McDowell and Raleigh Counties for Individual Assistance and
Public Assistance.
    Mercer County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant).

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12851 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41897-41899]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0703; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-019-AD;
Amendment 39-17112; AD 2012-13-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PZL Swidnik S.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the PZL
Swidnik S.A. (PZL) Model PZL W-3A helicopter with a certain generator
air outlet collector (collector) installed. This AD requires modifying
the generator air outlet collector attachments (collector attachments).
This AD is prompted by an incident where cyclic control stick movement
was restricted due to rotation of a loose collector, resulting in
locking of the longitudinal control system hydraulic actuator fork end.
These actions are intended to prevent rotation of the collector, which
could lead to restricted cyclic control stick movement, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 1, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of August 1, 2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket

Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact
Transportation Equipment Factory PZL-[Sacute]widnik S.A., A1.
Lotnik[oacute]w Polskich 1, 21-045 [Sacute]widnik, Poland; telephone
(+48 81) 468 09 01, 751 20 71; fax (+48 81) 468 09 19, 751 21 73; or at
www.pzl.swidnik.pl. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2010-0017, dated January 29, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition
for the PZL Model PZL W-3A helicopter with a generator air outlet
collector, part number (P/N) GT40PCz8B, installed. EASA advises there
was a report of an in-flight incident where cyclic control stick
movement was restricted. Post-flight investigation revealed that this
incident was caused by the rotation of a loose collector, resulting in
the locking of the longitudinal control system hydraulic actuator fork
end. This condition, if not detected, could lead to restricted cyclic
control stick movement, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Poland and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Poland, EASA, their technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
their AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type
design.
    There are no helicopters of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these helicopters are
placed on the U.S. Registry in the future.

Related Service Information

    PZL has issued Service Bulletin No. BS-37-09-230, dated October 13,
2009 (SB), which specifies modifying the collector attachments to
prevent collector rotation. The SB specifies installing a cable and
reinforcing the welded clamping rings' connections with additional
rivets. EASA classified this SB as mandatory and issued AD No. 2010-
0017 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires modifying the collector attachments with a
protective cable and additional riveting as described in Section II of
the manufacturer's service bulletin.

Differences between this AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires compliance within one month after the
effective date of their AD, while this AD requires compliance within
100 hours time-in-service.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are
none of these products on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists
for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-13-10 PZL Swidnik S.A.: Amendment 39-17112; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0703; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-019-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to PZL Swidnik S.A. (PZL) Model PZL W-3A
helicopters with a generator air outlet collector, part number (P/N)
GT40PCz8B; certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as rotation of the
generator air outlet collector, which could lead to restricted
cyclic control stick movement and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 1, 2012.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Action

    Within 100 hours time-in-service, modify the generator air
outlet collector attachments in accordance with Section II and
Sketches 1 and 2 of PZL-Swidnik Service Bulletin No. BS-37-09-230,
dated October 13, 2009.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits will not be issued.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-
5110, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD 2010-0017, dated January 29, 2010.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2420: AC
Generation System.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Transportation Equipment Factory PZL-[Sacute]widnik Service
Bulletin No. BS-37-09-230, dated October 13, 2009, to do the actions
required by this AD.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PZL service information identified in this AD, contact
Transportation Equipment Factory PZL-[Sacute]widnik S.A., A1.
Lotnik[oacute]w Polskich 1, 21-045 [Sacute]widnik, Poland; telephone
(+48 81) 468 09 01, 751 20 71; fax (+48 81) 468 09 19, 751 21 73; or
at www.pzl.swidnik.pl.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room
663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (5) You may also view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 2, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-16939 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20274-20276]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08549]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74695; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot
Period Applicable to the Customer Best Execution Auction per Rule 971.1
NY, Until July 17, 2015

April 9, 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 April 7, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') 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 extend the pilot period applicable to the
Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE''), per Rule 971.1NY, until
July 17, 2015. 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 the
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 extend the pilot period applicable to
certain aspects of the Customer Best Execution--or CUBE--Auction, which
is currently set to expire on April 24, 2015, until July 17, 2015.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that the proposed extension would align
the expiration of the pilot period with that of other competing
options exchanges that offer electronic price improvement auctions
similar to the CUBE. See, e.g., ISE Rule 723 Supplementary Material
.03 (pilot period for price improvement mechanism extended until
Friday, July 17, 2015); PHLX Rule 1080(n)(vii); (pilot period for
price improvement mechanism extended until Saturday, July 18, 2015);
CBOE Rule 6.74A Interpretation and Policies .03 (same); BOX IM-7150-
1 (same). Because July 18, 2015 is a Saturday and the Exchange is
not open, the Exchange proposes to extend the pilot until Friday,
July 17, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Rule 971.1NY sets forth an electronic crossing mechanism for
single-leg orders with a price improvement auction on the Exchange,
referred to as the CUBE Auction.\5\ The CUBE Auction, which was
approved in April 2014, is designed to provide price improvement for
paired orders of any size.\6\ Two aspects of the CUBE were approved for
a one-year pilot period--Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes the
permissible range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50
contracts; and Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), which establishes that the minimum
size for a CUBE Auction is one contract (together, the ``CUBE Pilot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See generally Rule 971.1NY (Electronic Cross Transactions).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25,
2014), 79 FR 24779 (May 1, 2014) (NYSEMKT-2014-17) (the ``CUBE
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ATP Holder may initiate a CUBE Auction by electronically
submitting for execution a limit order it represents as agent on behalf
of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``CUBE
Order'') against principal interest or against any other order it
represents as agent, provided the initiating ATP Holder complies with
Rule 971.1NY.\7\ Rule 971.1NY(b)(1) sets forth the permissible range of
executions for a CUBE Order.\8\ Pursuant to the CUBE Pilot, a CUBE
Order for fewer than 50 contracts is subject to tighter ranges of
execution than larger CUBE Orders to maximize price improvement.\9\
Specifically, if the CUBE Order is for fewer than 50 contracts, the
range of permissible execution will be equal to or better than the
National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO''), provided that such price must be at
least one cent better than any displayed interest in the Exchange's
Consolidated Book.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition, CUBE provides for the automatic execution,
under certain conditions, of a crossing transaction where there is a
public customer order in the same options series on each side.
    \8\ Subject to specified exceptions, a CUBE Order to buy (sell)
may execute at prices equal to or between the initiating price as
the upper (lower) bound and the National Best Bid (``NBB'')
(National Best Offer (``NBO'')) as the lower (upper) bound. See Rule
971.1NY(b).
    \9\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B). Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), also subject
to the pilot period, provides that the minimum size for a CUBE
Auction is one contract. See Rule (b)(8).
    \10\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE Pilot was initially approved for a one-year pilot.\11\
Pursuant to Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY, the CUBE Pilot would, if
not amended, end on April 24, 2015.\12\ In connection with the CUBE
Pilot, the Exchange agreed to submit certain data to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 6.
    \12\ See also Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY (establishing one-
year pilot period for Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8)).
    \13\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra, n. 6 at 79 FR 24779, at
24785-86, fn. 94-95. See also Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the CUBE Pilot
    The Exchange implemented the CUBE Auction to provide an electronic
crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement
auction. The CUBE Pilot was designed to create tighter markets and
ensure that each order receives the best possible price. The Exchange
believes that the CUBE Pilot attracts order flow and promotes
competition and price improvement opportunities for CUBE Orders of
fewer than 50 contracts. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot
period is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the
Commission additional time to analyze data regarding the CUBE Pilot
that the Exchange has committed to provide.\14\ As such, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to extend the current operation of the
Pilot. Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to amend Commentary .01
to Rule 971.1NY and extend the current pilot period until July 17,
2015.\15\ The Exchange notes that it would retain the text of Rules
971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8). In further support of this proposed
rule change, the Exchange would continue to submit to the Commission
detailed data from, and analysis of, the CUBE Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ See proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period is consistent
with these principles because the CUBE Pilot is reasonably designed to
create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives the best
possible price, which benefits investors by increasing competition
thereby maximizing opportunities for price improvement. The proposed
extension would allow

the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any
potential investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Because the CUBE Pilot is applicable to
all CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts, and to the requirement
that the minimum size of the CUBE Auction is one contract, the proposal
to extend the pilot merely acts to maintain status quo on the Exchange,
which promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The extension of the pilot period will
allow the Commission and the Exchange to continue to monitor the CUBE
Pilot to ascertain whether there is meaningful competition for all size
orders and whether there is an active and liquid market functioning on
the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply
extends an established pilot program for an additional period and would
allow for further analysis of the CUBE Pilot. In addition, the proposed
extension would allow the CUBE Pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Thus, the proposal would also
serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing
burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a
self-regulatory organization to give 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. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will allow the pilot program to continue without
interruption. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-28 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-NYSEMKT-2015-28. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method.
    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet
Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices 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-NYSEMKT-2015-28, and should
be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08549 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P