[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14805-14807]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05789]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 54 / Friday, March 20, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0749; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-051-AD;
Amendment 39-18118; AD 2015-05-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model
382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This AD was prompted by an
evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the
upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing are subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing
to detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to
skin panels, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary; and replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on
the outer wing. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of
the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-
to-fitting fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 24, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 24,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0749.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0749; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-
5554; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Lockheed Martin
Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E,
382F, and 382G airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62075). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation
by the DAH indicating that the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the
outer wing are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing
to detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to
skin panels, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary; and replacement of the upper and lower rainbow fittings on
the outer wing. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of
the upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-
to-fitting fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the
airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received. The commenter
supported the NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 62075, October 16, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin
382-57-95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013. The service
bulletin describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the
upper and lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing, and corrective
actions. This service information is reasonably available; see
ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECSS inspection..................  24 work-hours x $85              $0  $2,040 per           $40,800 per
                                    per hour = $2,040                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Bolt hole inspection during        24 work-hours x $85               0  2,040..............  40,800.
 rainbow fitting replacement.       per hour = $2,040.
Replacement of all four rainbow    2,060 work-hours x           28,000  203,100............  4,062,000.
 fittings.                          $85 per hour =
                                    $175,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of one rainbow fitting...........  515 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $7,000          $50,775
                                                $43,775.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for on-condition actions for cracking of the skin-panel-
to-fitting fastener holes specified in this AD.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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, 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):

2015-05-08 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-18118 ; Docket No. FAA-2014-0749; Directorate
Identifier 2014-NM-051-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 24, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes;
certificated in any category; having any outer wing serial number
4542 and subsequent, or any manufacturing end product (MEP)
replacement outer wing except 14Y series.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the upper and lower rainbow fittings on
the outer wing are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We
are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the upper and
lower rainbow fittings on the outer wing and skin-panel-to-fitting
fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane and possible separation of the wing from the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Eddy Current Surface Scan (ECSS) Inspections

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Do an ECSS inspection of the left and right outer
wing upper and lower rainbow fitting-to-skin-panel attachments to
detect cracks propagating from fasteners attaching the fittings to
skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-95, including Appendix
A, dated December 16, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1)
of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative actions before
further flight. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair

the cracking, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection of the left and right outer wing upper and lower rainbow
fitting-to-skin-panel attachments thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 2,000 flight hours, except as provided by paragraph (l) of
this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight hours on any
wing.
    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Rainbow Fitting Replacement and Inspections

    At the time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, do the
actions required by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the wing faying structure for
damage and cracks, and do an automated bolt hole eddy current
inspection on all open fastener holes in the mating structure,
stiffeners, webs and angles for cracking, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Service Bulletin 382-57-95, including Appendix A, dated December 16,
2013, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (i) If any damage is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the
damage, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (ii) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the
cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-95,
including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, except as provided by
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Replace the left and right upper and lower rainbow fittings
of the outer wing with new fittings, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Service Bulletin 382-57-95, including Appendix A, dated December 16,
2013.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: AD 2012-06-09, Amendment 39-
16990 (77 FR 21404, April 10, 2012), is related to the rainbow
fitting replacement. AD 2012-06-09 references the Lockheed Martin
Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G Series Aircraft Service Manual
Publication (SMP), Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID), SMP 515-C-SSID, Change 1, dated September 10, 2010; which
contains inspections for the entire Model 382B-H airframe, not just
the outer wing. Since installing new rainbow fittings, as required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, resets the accumulated service life on
certain parts to zero, certain compliance times specified in Table 3
of this SSID would be affected by the installation of new outer wing
fittings.

    Note 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD: AD 2011-15-02, Amendment 39-
16749 (76 FR 41647, July 15, 2011), has requirements for fuel system
limitations and critical design configuration control limitations,
which might include configuration or parts limitations on areas
affected by accomplishment of this AD.

(i) Compliance Times for Paragraph (h) of This AD

    At the later of the times specified in paragraph (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this
AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 50,000 total flight hours on any
wing.
    (2) Within 60 days or 100 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Although Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service
Bulletin 382-57-95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013,
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.
    (2) Where Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin
382-57-95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013, specifies
to contact Lockheed for repair instructions, before further flight,
repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    After replacement of the left and right upper and lower rainbow
fittings of the outer wing with new fittings, as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, any subsequent rainbow fitting
replacements must be done using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(l) Outer Wing Flight Hours Adjustment

    For any wing on which the left or right upper and lower rainbow
fittings of the outer wing have been replaced with new fittings as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before the accumulation of
30,000 flight hours after accomplishing the replacement, do the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD and repeat
thereafter at the times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by a
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Designated Engineering Representative (DER) that has been authorized
by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

(n) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(o) 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) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Service Bulletin 382-57-
95, including Appendix A, dated December 16, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Lockheed service information identified in this AD,
contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58,
86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
770-494-5445; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 6, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-05789 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 30608]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12337]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9910-55-Region 1]

2014 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is
announcing the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing
ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. The
Commission will be evaluating potential measures and considering
actions in areas such as performance standards for electric generating
units (EGUs) on high electric demand days, oil and gas boilers serving
EGUs, small natural gas boilers, stationary generators, energy
security/energy efficiency, architectural industrial and maintenance
coatings, consumer products, institution commercial and industrial
(ICI) boilers, vapor recovery at gas stations, large above ground
storage tanks, seaports, aftermarket catalysts, lightering, and non-
road idling.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 11, 2014 starting at 9:30 a.m.
and ending at 4:00 p.m.
    Location: The Lord Baltimore Hotel located at 20 W. Baltimore
Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport
Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC
20001;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain
at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR)
comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The
purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation,
transport, and control within the OTR.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC
office<PHONE_NUMBER>; by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via the OTC Web
site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: May 22, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 2014-12337 Filed 5-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64505-64506]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Request for Nominations for Voting Members on a Public Advisory
Committee; Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting
nominations for voting members to serve on the Tobacco Products
Scientific Advisory Committee, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco
Products.
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before December 30, 2013, will be
given first consideration for membership on the Tobacco Products
Scientific Advisory Committee. Nominations received after December 30,
2013, will be considered for nomination to the committee as later
vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be sent electronically
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and
Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding all nomination questions for
membership, the primary contact is: Caryn Cohen, Office of Science,
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-1373 (choose Option 5),
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Information about becoming a member on an FDA advisory committee
can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site by using the following
link: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nominations for voting
members on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a
separate document announcing the Request for Nominations for Nonvoting
Industry Representatives on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory
Committee.

I. General Description of the Committee Duties

    The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee advises the
Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate
to the regulation of tobacco products. The Committee reviews and
evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco
products and provides appropriate advice, information, and
recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The Committee shall consist of 12 members including the Chair.
Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from
among individuals knowledgeable in the fields of medicine, medical
ethics, science, or technology involving the manufacture, evaluation,
or use of tobacco products. Members will be invited to serve for
overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of
this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The Committee
shall include nine technically qualified voting members, selected by
the Commissioner or designee. The nine voting members shall be
physicians, dentists, scientists, or health care professionals
practicing in the area of oncology, pulmonology, cardiology,

toxicology, pharmacology, addiction, or any other relevant specialty.
    In addition to the voting members, the committee shall include
three nonvoting members who are identified with industry interests.
These members shall include one representative of the tobacco
manufacturing industry, one representative of the interests of tobacco
growers, and one representative of the interests of the small business
tobacco manufacturing industry.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the advisory committee. Self-nominations
are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including
current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and
email address if available. Nominations must also specify the advisory
committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also
acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-
nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed
information concerning such matters related to financial holdings,
employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation
of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-25541 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 48845]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16024]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-079]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed July 17, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through July 24, 2023 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

     Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230089, Draft, FHWA, VA, Bowers Hill Interchange Improvements
Study, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2023, Contact: John Simkins 804-775-
3347.
EIS No. 20230090, Draft, USACE, FL, Tampa Harbor Navigation Improvement
Study Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2023, Contact: Graceann
Sparkman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230091, Draft, NPS, MI, Isle Royale National Park Wilderness
Stewardship Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/26/2023, Contact: Denice
Swanke<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 24, 2023.
Nancy Abrams,
Associate Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-16024 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31044-31050]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10802]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94917; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

May 16, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 2, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') by introducing two new pricing tiers, Tier 2
under Adding Tiers and Step Up Tier 3 under Step Up Tiers. The Exchange
also proposes to eliminate Step Up Tier 1 under Step Up Tiers and
eliminate Tier 4 under Tape C Tiers for Adding. Lastly, the Exchange
proposes to amend the criteria to qualify for Tier 3 under Tape C Tiers
for Adding. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes
effective May 2, 2022. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule by introducing two
new pricing tiers, Tier 2 under Adding Tiers and Step Up Tier 3 under
Step Up Tiers. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate Step Up Tier 1
under Step Up Tiers and eliminate Tier 4 under Tape C Tiers for Adding.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend the criteria to qualify for Tier
3 under Tape C Tiers for Adding. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective May 2, 2022.
Background
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \4\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\5\ numerous alternative trading systems,\6\ and broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on publicly available information, no single exchange currently
has more than 18% market share.\7\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 12% market share of
executed volume of equities trading.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \5\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \6\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. With respect to non-marketable order
flow that would provide liquidity on an Exchange against which market
makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16
currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees
that relate to orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
Adding Tiers--Tier 2
    The Exchange proposes to introduce a new pricing tier, Tier 2, in
the Adding Tiers table under Section VI. Tier Rates--Round Lots and Odd
Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or Above). As proposed, an ETP Holder could
qualify for a credit of $0.0030 per share for Adding in Tape A
securities, $0.0023 per share for Adding in Tape B securities and
$0.0031 per share for Adding in Tape C securities if the ETP Holder has
Adding ADV that is equal to at least 0.50% of CADV.\9\ With the
proposed addition of a new pricing tier and the renumbering of existing
tiers, the Exchange proposes to amend the

text regarding certain fees that are applicable to ETP Holders that
qualify for each of the tiers by adding reference to the newly
renumbered Tier 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With the introduction of the new Tier 2 pricing tier, the
Exchange proposes to renumber current Tier 2 as Tier 3 and current
Tier 3 as Tier 4 without making any changes to the requirement or
credits to those tiers. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
replace reference to Tier 3 with Tier 4 in the text attached to the
note denoted by * under current Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new pricing tier will
incentivize ETP Holders to route their liquidity-providing order flow
to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier, which provides higher
credits than those currently available under current Tier 2 and current
Tier 3. This in turn would support the quality of price discovery on
the Exchange and provide additional price improvement opportunities for
incoming orders. The Exchange believes that by correlating the amount
of the fee to the level of orders sent by an ETP Holder that add
liquidity, the Exchange's fee structure would incentivize ETP Holders
to submit more orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
increasing the potential for price improvement to incoming marketable
orders submitted to the Exchange.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment,
particularly as it relates to attracting non-marketable orders, which
add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange does not know how much
order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-
exchange venues. Based on the profile of liquidity-adding firms
generally, the Exchange believes that a number of ETP Holders could
qualify for the proposed new pricing tier if they choose to direct
order flow to the Exchange. However, without having a view of ETP
Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any additional ETP Holders directing orders to the Exchange
in order to qualify for the new Tier 2 credits.
Step Up Tiers
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate by executing more of their
orders on the Exchange. The Exchange currently provides credits to ETP
Holders who submit orders that provide displayed liquidity on the
Exchange. The Exchange currently has multiple levels of credits for
orders that provide displayed liquidity that are based on the amount of
volume of such orders that ETP Holders send to the Exchange.
    In this competitive environment, the Exchange has already
established Step Up Tiers 1-3, which are designed to encourage ETP
Holders that provide displayed liquidity on the Exchange to increase
that order flow, which would benefit all ETP Holders by providing
greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. In order to provide an
incentive for ETP Holders to direct providing displayed order flow to
the Exchange, the credits increase in the various tiers based on
increased levels of volume directed to the Exchange.
    Currently, the following credits are available to ETP Holders that
provide increased levels of displayed liquidity on the Exchange:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tier                Credit for adding displayed liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step Up Tier 1...............  $0.0030 (Tape A), $0.0023 (Tape B),
                                $0.0031 (Tape C).
Step Up Tier 2...............  $0.0028 (Tape A and C), $0.0022 (Tape B).
Step Up Tier 3...............  $0.0033 (Tape A and C), $0.0034 (Tape B).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the Step Up Tiers.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate current Step Up Tier 1 and
remove the pricing tier from the Fee Schedule. The current Step Up Tier
1 pricing tier has been underutilized by ETP Holders. The Exchange has
observed that not a single ETP Holder has qualified for the pricing
tier proposed for elimination in the last three months. Since the
current Step Up Tier 1 pricing tier has not been effective in
accomplishing its intended purpose, which is to incent ETP Holders to
increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, the Exchange
has determined to eliminate the pricing tier from the Fee Schedule.
With the proposed elimination of Step Up Tier 1, the Exchange proposes
to rename current Step Up Tier 2 as Step Up Tier 1 and current Step Up
Tier 3 as Step Up Tier 2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With the proposed addition of a new pricing tier and the
renumbering of existing tiers, the Exchange proposes to amend
footnote (b) under Section VI. of the Fee Schedule by replacing
reference to Step Up Tier 3 with Step Up Tier 2 in the footnote. The
applicability of footnote (b) would otherwise remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to introduce a new pricing tier, Step
Up Tier 3, in the Step Up Tiers table under Section VI. Tier Rates--
Round Lots and Odd Lots (Per Share Price $1.00 or Above). As proposed,
an ETP Holder would qualify for the new Step Up Tier 3 if the ETP
Holder has Adding ADV that is an increase of at least 0.35% as a
percentage of CADV over the ETP Holder's Adding ADV in September 2019.
An ETP Holder would alternatively qualify for the new Step Up Tier 3 if
the ETP Holder has Removing ADV that is equal to at least 0.50% as a
percentage of CADV and has Adding ADV that is an increase of at least
0.25% as a percentage of CADV over the ETP Holder's Adding ADV in
September 2019. ETP Holders that meet either of the two criteria would
qualify for a credit of $0.0031 per share for orders that provide
displayed liquidity in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed new Step Up Tier 3 pricing tier
would incentivize order flow providers to send a greater number of
liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange to qualify for the pricing
tier. While the proposed pricing tier would pay a credit that is lower
than that available to ETP Holders under current Step Up Tier 3, the
new tier also adopts lower volume thresholds than that required to
qualify for current Step Up Tier 3. Additionally, proposed new Step Up
Tier 3 provides ETP Holders with two ways to qualify for the credits
payable under the pricing tier, and also provides for higher credits
than those provided under current Step Up Tier 2 and current Step Up
Tier 1, the latter of which the Exchange is proposing to eliminate
entirely with this proposed rule change.
Tape C Tiers
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an
opportunity to receive credits by executing their orders in Tape C
securities on the Exchange.
    In this competitive environment, the Exchange has already
established pricing for trading activity in Tape C securities where the
credits increase in the various tiers based on increased levels of
volume directed to the Exchange. The current Tape C Tiers are designed
to encourage ETP Holders that provide liquidity in Tape C securities to
increase that order flow, which would benefit all ETP Holders by
providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
    Currently, the following credits are available to ETP Holders that
add

liquidity in Tape C securities on the Exchange:
     Tape C Tier 4 credit of $0.0029 per share for ETP Holders
that have at least 0.15% Adding ADV as a percentage of CADV, or 20
million shares of Adding ADV;
     Tape C Tier 3 credit of $0.0031 per share for ETP Holders
that have at least 0.25% Adding ADV as a percentage of CADV;
     Tape C Tier 2 credit of $0.0033 per share for ETP Holders
that have at least 0.35% Adding ADV as a percentage of CADV; and
     Tape C Tier 1 credit of $0.0034 per share for ETP Holders
that have at least 0.40% Adding ADV as a percentage of CADV and a fee
of $0.0029 per share for removing liquidity.
    The Exchange proposes the following changes to the Tape C Tiers.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate current Tape C Tier 4 and
remove the pricing tier from the Fee Schedule. The current Tape C Tier
4 tier has been underutilized by ETP Holders. The Exchange has observed
that not a single ETP Holder has qualified for the pricing tier
proposed for elimination in the last three months. Since the current
Tape C Tier 4 pricing tier has not been effective in accomplishing its
intended purpose, which is to incent ETP Holders to direct their
liquidity adding activity in Tape C securities to the Exchange, the
Exchange has determined to eliminate the pricing tier from the Fee
Schedule.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the requirements to qualify
for current Tape C Tier 3 and the credit associated with Tape C Tier 3.
As proposed, an ETP Holder would qualify for Tape C Tier 3 if the ETP
Holder has Adding ADV of at least 0.20% as a percentage of CADV. ETP
Holders that meet the proposed lower volume requirement would qualify
to receive a credit of $0.0030 per share for orders in Tape C
securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange.
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 (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
orders that provide liquidity on an Exchange, ETP Holders can choose
from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably
constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would
provide displayed liquidity on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
Adding Tiers--Tier 2
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Tier 2 pricing tier is
reasonable because it is designed to encourage increased trading
activity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
require ETP Holders to meet the applicable volume threshold as it
offers liquidity providers an opportunity to receive an enhanced
rebate. Further, the proposed new pricing tier is reasonable as it
would provide ETP Holders an additional opportunity to qualify for a
rebate by meeting lower volume threshold than that required to qualify
for current Tier 1. The Exchange believes that the proposal represents
a reasonable effort to promote price improvement and enhanced order
execution opportunities for ETP Holders. All ETP Holders would benefit
from the greater amounts of liquidity on the Exchange, which would
represent a wider range of execution opportunities. The Exchange
believes the proposed new Tier 2 pricing tier is a reasonable means to
encourage ETP Holders to increase their liquidity providing orders in
Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
environment, particularly for attracting order flow that provides
liquidity on an exchange. More specifically, the Exchange notes that
greater add volume order flow may provide for deeper, more liquid
markets and execution opportunities at improved prices, which the
Exchange believes would incentivize liquidity providers to submit
additional liquidity and enhance execution opportunities.
Step Up Tiers
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt the new Step Up Tier 3
pricing tier is reasonable as it would serve as an incentive to market
participants to increase the orders sent directly to NYSE Arca and
therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price
discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange believes the
proposed pricing tier is reasonable and equitable because it would
allow ETP Holders to receive increased credits from those currently
available under current Step Up Tier 2 and current Step Up Tier 1, the
latter of which the Exchange proposes to eliminate with this proposed
rule change. Moreover, the addition of the new Step Up Tier 3 pricing
tier would benefit market participants whose increased order flow would
provide meaningful added levels of liquidity thereby contributing to
the depth and market quality on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange
believes the proposed pricing tier is reasonable as it also provides
ETP Holders two methods to qualify for the proposed credit. An ETP
Holder can choose to either send only liquidity-providing orders or a
combination of orders that Add liquidity and Remove liquidity and as
long as the ETP Holder meets the prescribed requirement, the ETP Holder
would qualify for the proposed new pricing tier and the corresponding
credit.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate
the Step Up Tier 1 pricing tier is reasonable because the pricing tier
has been underutilized and has not incentivized ETP Holders to bring
liquidity and increase trading on the Exchange. No ETP Holder has
availed itself of the pricing tier in the last three months. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate requirements and
credits, and

even entire pricing tiers, when such incentives become underutilized.
The Exchange believes eliminating underutilized incentive programs
would also simplify the Fee Schedule. The Exchange further believes
that removing reference to the pricing tier that the Exchange proposes
to eliminate from the Fee Schedule would also add clarity to the Fee
Schedule.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
available to all ETP Holders on an equal basis. They also provide
additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the
value of the Exchange's market quality and associated higher levels of
market activity. Additionally, the Exchange is one of many venues and
off-exchange venues to which market participants may direct their order
flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market.
Competing exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of
the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based
on members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Tape C Tiers
    The Exchange believes the proposed change to lower the volume
requirement under the Tape C Tier 3 is reasonable because it would
allow ETP Holders to more easily meet the requirement of the pricing
tier to receive per share credits payable under the pricing tier,
thereby encouraging the submission of additional liquidity to a
national securities exchange. Submission of additional liquidity to the
Exchange would promote price discovery and transparency and enhance
order execution opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial
amounts of liquidity present on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the
proposed lower volume requirement is also reasonable as it would
provide an additional incentive for ETP Holders to qualify for this
established tier and direct their order flow to the Exchange and
provide meaningful added levels of displayed liquidity, thereby
contributing to the depth and market quality on the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes it is reasonable to offer a nominally lower
credit to ETP Holders when they qualify for Tape C Tier because ETP
Holders would correspondingly be subject to lower volume requirement to
qualify for such credit.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate
the Tape C Tier 4 pricing tier is reasonable because the pricing tier
has been underutilized and has not incentivized ETP Holders to bring
liquidity and increase trading on the Exchange. No ETP Holder has
availed itself of the pricing tier in the last three months. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate requirements and
credits, and even entire pricing tiers, when such incentives become
underutilized. The Exchange believes eliminating underutilized
incentive programs would also simplify the Fee Schedule. The Exchange
further believes that removing reference to the pricing tier that the
Exchange proposes to eliminate from the Fee Schedule would also add
clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees and
credits among its market participants.
Adding Tiers--Tier 2
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to introduce a new
pricing tier for ETP Holders equitably allocates its fees among its
market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed new Tier 2
pricing tier is equitable because it is open to all similarly situated
ETP Holders on an equal basis and provides a per share credit that is
reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality
associated with higher volumes. The Exchange believes it is equitable
to require ETP Holders to meet the applicable volume thresholds to
qualify for the new Tier 2 credits. The Exchange believes the proposed
change would continue to encourage ETP Holders to both submit
additional liquidity to the Exchange and execute orders on the
Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, to the
benefit of all market participants.
    The proposed change is designed as an incentive to any and all
liquidity providers interested in meeting the tier criteria to submit
order flow to the Exchange and each will receive the associated rebate
if the tier criteria is met. The Exchange believes that the proposed
new Tier 2 could encourage the submission and removal of additional
liquidity from the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of liquidity
present on the Exchange. All ETP Holders would benefit from the greater
amounts of liquidity that would be present on the Exchange, which would
provide greater execution opportunities.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also improve
market quality for all market participants seeking to remove liquidity
on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality. The Exchange believes
that the proposal constitutes an equitable allocation of fees because
all similarly situated ETP Holders would be eligible for the fees and
credits provided under the proposed new pricing tier.
Step Up Tiers
    The Exchange believes the proposed new Step Up Tier 3 pricing tier
is equitable because it would allow ETP Holders to receive increased
credits above those currently available under current Step Up Tier 2
and current Step Up Tier 1, the latter of which the Exchange proposes
to eliminate with this proposed rule change. Moreover, the addition of
the new Step Up Tier 3 pricing tier would benefit market participants
whose increased order flow would provide meaningful added levels of
liquidity thereby contributing to the depth and market quality on the
Exchange. Given that Step Up Tier 3 would be a new pricing tier, no ETP
Holder currently qualifies for the proposed credit. And without having
a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would result in any ETP Holders qualifying for this tier.
However, the Exchange believes the proposed volume requirements and the
multiple ways by which an ETP Holder could qualify for the proposed
pricing tier should provide an incentive for ETP Holders to submit
orders that both provide liquidity and remove liquidity, which would
promote price discovery and increase execution opportunities for all
ETP Holders. The Exchange notes that the proposed new Step Up Tier 3
would use the same September 2019 baseline as the current Step Up Tier
3, renamed as Step Up Tier 2. The Exchange believes that utilizing the
same baseline would make it easier for ETP Holders to monitor their
providing ADV, as opposed to introducing a new baseline. The Exchange
believes the proposed change would thereby encourage the submission of
additional orders to a national securities exchange, thus promoting
price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders from the substantial amounts of liquidity
present on the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants on
the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits,
and even entire pricing tiers, from the

Fee Schedule when such incentives become ineffective is equitable
because the requirements, and credits, and even entire pricing tiers,
would be eliminated in their entirety and would no longer be available
to any ETP Holder. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change
would protect investors and the public interest because the deletion of
the underutilized pricing tier would make the Fee Schedule more
accessible and transparent and facilitate market participants'
understanding of the fees charged for services currently offered by the
Exchange.
Tape C Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification of the volume
threshold to qualify for Tape C Tier 3 and the corresponding credit
payable under the pricing tier represents an equitable allocation of
fees. The Exchange believes the proposal would continue to encourage
ETP Holders to send orders that add liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which would benefit all
market participants. The Exchange believes that lowering the
requirement would make it easier for liquidity providers to qualify for
the Tape C Tier 3 credit of $0.0030 per share. While the Exchange
proposes to nominally lower the credit that would be payable under the
pricing tier, the Exchange believes the proposed lower volume
requirement would nonetheless encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to the Exchange, thus promoting price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all ETP
Holders.
    The Exchange believes the proposed lower volume requirement should
incentivize ETP Holders to submit liquidity-providing order flow, which
would promote price discovery and increase execution opportunities for
all ETP Holders. While the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would definitively result in any particular ETP
Holder qualifying for the modified Tape C Tier 3, the Exchange
anticipates a number of ETP Holders would be able to meet, or will
reasonably be able to meet, the modified criteria. However, without
having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the
Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would
result in any ETP Holder meeting the modified requirement and
qualifying for the modified Tape C Tier 3 rebate. As stated, the
proposed changes to the requirements to qualify for the Tape C Tier 3
pricing tier and the corresponding credit is designed to continue to
incentivize ETP Holders to submit additional liquidity in Tape C
securities. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, attract more liquidity to the Exchange thereby
improving market-wide quality.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of fees and credits and is not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all ETP
Holders will have the opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and
receive the applicable rebate if such criteria is met. The proposed
rebate would apply automatically and uniformly to all ETP Holders that
achieve the corresponding criteria.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory.
Adding Tiers--Tier 2
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to introduce
the new Tier 2 pricing tier is not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange believes that the proposal does not permit unfair
discrimination because the proposed new pricing tier would be applied
to all similarly situated ETP Holders and all ETP Holders would be
subject to the same requirements under the proposed new tier.
Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange would be
disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees and credits under the
proposed new tier. The Exchange further believes that the proposed fee
change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because
the general and tiered rates are available equally to all ETP Holders.
As described above, in today's competitive marketplace, order flow
providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing order
flow, and the Exchange believes there are a number of ETP Holders who
could qualify for proposed new tier if they chose to direct their order
flow to the Exchange.
Step Up Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new Step Up Tier 3 pricing
tier is not unfairly discriminatory because it is open to all ETP
Holders, on an equal basis, who meet the requirements to qualify for
the tier. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because
the proposed volume requirements to qualify for the new pricing tier
would be applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders, who would all
be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no ETP
Holder already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this
allocation of fees. The Exchange believes the proposed new pricing tier
would also serve as an incentive to ETP Holders that do not currently
meet the requirement of other pricing tiers on the Exchange to increase
the level of orders sent directly to NYSE Arca in order to qualify for,
and receive the credits associated with the proposed new Step Up Tier
3. The proposed new pricing tier would apply equally to all ETP Holders
as each would be required to meet one of two volume requirements to
qualify for the proposed credit associated with the proposed new
pricing tier, regardless of whether an ETP Holder currently meets the
requirement of another pricing tier.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits
associated with Step Up Tier 1 from the Fee Schedule when such
incentives become ineffective is not unfairly discriminatory because
the requirements and credits associated with the pricing tier would be
eliminated in its entirety and would no longer be available to any ETP
Holder. All ETP Holders would continue to be subject to the same fee
structure, and access to the Exchange's market would continue to be
offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change would protect investors and the
public interest because the deletion of the underutilized pricing tier
would make the Fee Schedule more accessible and transparent and
facilitate market participants' understanding of the fees charged for
services currently offered by the Exchange.
Tape C Tiers
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to adopt
lower volume requirements for ETP Holders to qualify for the Tape C
Tier 3 pricing tier and a corresponding lower credit as the proposed
change would apply on an equal basis to all ETP Holders. The proposal
does not permit unfair discrimination because the lower threshold and
the corresponding credit would be applied to all similarly situated ETP
Holders, who would all be eligible for the same credit on an equal
basis. The Exchange notes that the proposed change will not adversely
impact any ETP Holder's pricing or their ability to qualify for other
tiers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not
unfairly

discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value of the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume. The proposed
modified volume requirement and corresponding credit would apply
equally to all ETP Holders as each would be required to meet the
revised criteria in order to receive the corresponding credit.
    The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits
associated with Tape C Tier 4 from the Fee Schedule when such
incentives become ineffective is not unfairly discriminatory because
the requirements and credits associated with the pricing tier would be
eliminated in its entirety and would no longer be available to any ETP
Holder. All ETP Holders would continue to be subject to the same fee
structure, and access to the Exchange's market would continue to be
offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change would protect investors and the
public interest because the deletion of the underutilized pricing tier
would make the Fee Schedule more accessible and transparent and
facilitate market participants' understanding of the fees charged for
services currently offered by the Exchange.
* * * * *
    In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders are free to
disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer
them better value. Moreover, this proposed rule change neither targets
nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of
market participant. The Exchange believes that this proposal does not
permit unfair discrimination because the changes described in this
proposal would be applied uniformly to all similarly situated ETP
Holders and all ETP Holders would be subject to the same requirements.
Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange would be
disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes ``more
efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large
and small.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the 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 its competitors. The proposed changes are designed
to attract additional order flow to the Exchange, in particular with
respect to Tape C securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed
adoption of new pricing tiers and amending criteria of established
tiers would incentivize market participants to direct liquidity adding
order flow to the Exchange, bringing with it additional execution
opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency.
Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing
transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by
enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage ETP Holders to
send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change to eliminate underutilized pricing tiers will impose any burden
on intramarket competition because the proposed change would impact all
ETP Holders uniformly.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) is currently less than 12%. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can
impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \17\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-27 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-NYSEArca-2022-27. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-27, and should be
submitted on or before June 10, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10802 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38195]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1979-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Tennessee; Amendment No. 4 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 Tennessee (FEMA-1979-DR), dated May 9, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 21, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, 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 Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 9, 2011.

    Weakley County for Public Assistance, including direct Federal
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. 2011-16384 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7892-7893]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02896]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74224; File No. SR-ISE-2015-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the SPY Pilot Program

February 6, 2015.
    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 4, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its rules to extend the pilot program
that eliminated position and exercise limits for physically-settled
options on the SPDR S&P ETF Trust (``SPY'') (``SPY Pilot Program'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01 to Rule
412 and Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 414 to extend the duration
of the SPY Pilot Program through July 12, 2015, consistent with
proposed rule changes filed by other options exchanges.\3\ This filing
does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In
proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its
consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal
of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the liquidity of the option and
the underlying security, (2) the market capitalization of the
underlying security and the related index, (3) the reporting of large
positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (4) financial
requirements imposed by ISE and the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 73846 (December 16,
2014), 79 FR 76415 (December 22, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-64); 73847
(December 16, 2014), 79 FR 76426 (December 22, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-
2014-106); 72142 (May 9, 2014), 79 FR 27961 (May 15, 2014) (SR-
NASDAQ-2014-052); and 72143 (May 9, 2014), 79 FR 27963 (May 15,
2014) (SR-BX-2014-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this proposed extension to the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange
has submitted a report to the Commission reflecting the trading of
standardized SPY options without position limits from January through
December, 2014. The report was prepared in the manner specified in the
filing extending the SPY Pilot Program to the current pilot end date of
February 5, 2015. The Exchange notes that it is unaware of any problems
created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any as a result
of the proposed extension.
    The Exchange represents that it will submit a new pilot report at
least thirty (30) days before the end of the extended SPY Pilot
Program, which will cover the extended pilot period. The Pilot Report
will detail the size and different types of strategies employed with
respect to positions established as a result of the elimination of
position limits in SPY. In addition, the Pilot Report will note whether
any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other
information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY
Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility
in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration.
In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements
such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make
available to Commission staff data elements relating to the
effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program.
    Conditional on the findings in the Pilot Report, the Exchange will
file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program, adopt
the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If the
SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by
the expiration of the extended pilot, the position limits for SPY would
revert to limits in effect at the commencement of the SPY Pilot
Program.
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(b) of the Act.\4\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\5\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot Program promotes
just and equitable principles of trade by permitting market
participants, including market makers, institutional investors and
retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing their
investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that
economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent
manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to
position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of
imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of
promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing
impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the
same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position
limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or
facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(8) of the Act \6\ in that it does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its
competitors, or among market participants. Instead the proposed rule
change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue as other
SROs have adopted similar provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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

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

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

    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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow
the SPY Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ 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 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-ISE-2015-05 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-ISE-2015-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-05, and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02896 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12605-12606]
[DOCID:fr16mr07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the Record Communications; Public Notice

March 12, 2007.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Docket no.                 Date  received                  Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
1. CP07-62-000..........................         2-21-07  Ruth Coleman.
CP07-63-000.............................
CP07-64-000.............................
CP07-65-00..............................
Exempt:
1. CP98-150-000.........................         2-14-07  Hon Michael A. Arcuri.
2. CP06-615-000.........................          3-5-07  David Hanobic.
3. CP06-354-000.........................          3-5-07  David Swearington.
4. CP06-421-000.........................         2-17-07  Hon. Frank R. Wolf\1\.
5. CP07-8-000...........................          3-8-07  Joel A. Trick.
6. CP07-62-000, et al...................         2-14-07  Hon. Joseph J. Minnick.
7. CP07-62-000, et al...................         2-14-07  Hon. John Olsezewski, Sr.
8. ER07-427-000.........................         2-14-07  Hon. Judith F. Judson.
                                                          Hon. James Connelly.
                                                          Hon. W. Robert Keating.
                                                          Hon. Soo J. Kim.
9. Project No. 2197-008.................          3-1-07  Jennifer and James H. Farmer, Jr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\One of three letters from the Honorable Frank R. Wolf filed 2/21/07, 3/5/07 and 3/6/07, in Docket No. CP06-
  421-000.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4810 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P