[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 32 (Friday, February 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10368-10372]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03340]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91123; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List

February 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 1, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) introduce a
new Step Up Adding Tier 5, and (2) modify the incremental step up tier
for Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs'') (``Incremental SLP Step
Up Tier''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes
effective February 1, 2021. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) introduce a
new Step Up Adding Tier 5, and (2) modify the Incremental SLP Step Up
Tier.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-
providing orders by offering further incentives for member
organizations to send additional displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective
February 1, 2021.
Background
Current Market and Competitive Environment
    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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (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.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across
16 exchanges,\6\ 31 alternative trading systems,\7\ and numerous
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange has
more than 16% market share.\8\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of equity order flow. More
specifically, the Exchange's market share of trading in Tape A, B and C
securities combined is less than 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
    \6\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \7\ 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.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, in response to fee changes. With respect to non-marketable
order flow that would provide displayed liquidity on an Exchange,
member organizations 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.
    In response to the competitive environment described above, the
Exchange has established incentives for its member organizations who
submit orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange. The proposed fee
change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange by
incentivizing member organizations to submit additional displayed
liquidity to, and quote aggressively in support of the price discovery
process on, the Exchange.
Proposed Rule Change
New Step Up Tier 5 Adding Credit
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new ``Step Up Tier 5 Adding
Credit'' that would offer incremental credits for providing displayed
liquidity to the Exchange in Tape A securities.
    As proposed, the Exchange would provide incremental credits in Tape
A securities for all orders, other than MPL and Non-Displayed Limit
Orders, from a qualifying member organization's market participant
identifier (``MPID'') or mnemonic if the member organization has Adding
ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a Designated Market Maker
(``DMM''), that is at least 1.00% of Tape A CADV,\9\ and if the MPID or
mnemonic has an Adding ADV as a percentage of Tape A

CADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The terms ``ADV'' and ``CADV'' are defined in footnote * of
the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     At least two times more than that MPID's or mnemonic's
Adding ADV in January 2021 (``Baseline Month'') as a percentage of Tape
A CADV, and
     at least 0.10% of Tape A CADV over that MPID's or
mnemonic's Adding ADV in in the Baseline Month as a percentage of Tape
A CADV.
    A member organizations that meets the above requirements would
receive a $0.0001 incremental credit for an increase of at least 0.10%
and less than 0.175% of Tape A CADV over the Baseline Month. Member
organizations would receive a $0.0002 incremental credit for an
increase of at least 0.175% of Tape A CADV over the Baseline Month.
    For example, assume a member organization has an Adding ADV as a
percentage of Tape A CADV of 1.10% in the billing month, and qualified
for an Adding Tier 2 credit of $0.0020 per share. Further assume that
one of the member organization's MPIDs, MPID1, had an Adding ADV of
0.25% of Tape A CADV. Further assume that MPID1 has an Adding ADV of
0.10% in the Baseline Month. Because that MPID1's Adding ADV was 2.5
times its Baseline Month with a step up of 0.15%, MPID1 would qualify
for an incremental credit of $0.0001, for a combined credit of $0.0021,
based on the member organization's Adding Tier 2 credit.
    If in the following billing month the member organization again had
an Adding ADV as a percentage of Tape A CADV of 1.10%, and MPID1 had an
Adding ADV of 0.30% of Tape A CADV, for step up in Adding ADV of 0.20%
of Tape A CADV, MPID 1 would qualify for an incremental credit of
$0.0002, for a combined credit of $0.0022 based on the member
organization's Adding Tier 2 credit. If in the third billing month, the
member organization had an Adding ADV as a percentage of Tape A CADV of
0.95%, MPID1would not qualify for the Adding Step Up 5 as the member
organization's Adding ADV was below the 1.0% requirement.
    The purpose of this proposed change is to incentivize member
organizations to increase the liquidity-providing orders in the Tape A
securities they send to the Exchange, which would support the quality
of price discovery on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for
incoming orders. 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. Because the proposed tier
requires a member organization's MPID or mnemonic to increase the
volume of its trades in orders that add liquidity over that MPID or
mnemonic's January 2021 Adding ADV baseline, the Exchange believes that
the proposed credits would provide an incentive for all member
organizations to send additional liquidity to the Exchange in order to
qualify for them. The Exchange does not know how much order flow member
organizations choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange
venues. Based on the profile of liquidity-adding firms generally, the
Exchange believes that additional member organizations could qualify
for the tiered rate under the new qualification criteria if they choose
to direct order flow to, and increase quoting on, the Exchange.
However, without having a view of member organization's activity on
other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any member
organization directing orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for
the new tier.
Incremental SLP Step Up Tier
    Pursuant to the Incremental SLP Step Up Tier, the Exchange
currently provides an incremental credit to a SLP in addition to the
SLP's tiered or non-tiered credit for adding displayed liquidity if the
SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an
assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B (quotes of an SLP-Prop and an
SLMM of the same member organization shall not be aggregated) (the
``Quoting Requirement''), and (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) in the
billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) as a percent
of NYSE CADV in the second quarter of 2018 or the third quarter of
2018, whichever is lower, as follows:
     SLPs that (1) meet the Quoting Requirement, and (2) add
liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including
shares of both an SLP- Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated
member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.10% of NYSE CADV in the
billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) as a percent
of NYSE CADV in the second quarter of 2018 or the third quarter of
2018, whichever is lower, receive an incremental credit of $0.0001 per
share.
     SLPs that (1) meet the Quoting Requirement, and (2) add
liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including
shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated
member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV in the
billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) as a percent
of NYSE CADV in the second quarter of 2018 or the third quarter of
2018, whichever is lower, receive an incremental credit of $0.0002 per
share.
     SLPs that (1) meet the Quoting Requirement, and (2) add
liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including
shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated
member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.25% of NYSE CADV in the
billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and
an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member organization) as a percent
of NYSE CADV in the second quarter of 2018 or the third quarter of
2018, whichever is lower, receive an incremental credit of $0.0003 per
share.
    SLPs can only qualify for one of the three credits in a billing
month. Further, the combined SLP credits are currently capped at
$0.0032 per share in a billing month.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the second prong of the Incremental
SLP Step Up Tier by adopting an alternative qualification basis for
SLPs to qualify for the incremental credit. As proposed, SLPs would
continue to qualify for the one of the incremental credits if the SLP
adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate
(including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an
affiliated member organization) of an ADV of more than 0.10%, 0.15%, or
0.25% of NYSE CADV in the billing month over the SLP's adding liquidity
for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including shares of
both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an affiliated member
organization) as a percent of NYSE CADV in either the second quarter of
2018, the third quarter of 2018 or the month of January 2021, whichever
is lowest.
    The proposed change, which would allow the Exchange to use the
lowest or more favorable (to the SLP) of the three baseline benchmarks,
is intended to

allow a greater number of SLPs to qualify for the incremental credits.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that
market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, 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.'' \12\ 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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS'').
    \13\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Step UP Tier 5 Adding Credit
    The new proposed Step Up Tier 5 Adding Credit is reasonable.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed Step Up Tier 5
Adding Credit would provide an incentive for member organizations to
send additional liquidity providing orders to the Exchange in Tape A
securities. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, particularly for attracting non-marketable
order flow that provides liquidity on an exchange.
    The Exchange believes that requiring member organization to have
Adding ADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least
1.00% of Tape A CADV, and if the MPID or mnemonic has an Adding ADV as
a percentage of Tape A CADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM,
that is at least two times more than that MPID's or mnemonic's Adding
ADV in January 2021 as a percentage of Tapes A CADV, and at least 0.10%
of Tape A CADV over that MPID's or mnemonic's Adding ADV in in January
2021 as a percentage of Tape A CADV, in order to qualify for the
proposed Step Up Tier 5 Adding Credit is reasonable because it would
encourage additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange and because
market participants benefit from the greater amounts of displayed
liquidity present on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes it's
reasonable to provide a $0.0001 incremental credit to the qualifying
MPID or mnemonic for an increase of at least 0.10% and less than 0.175%
of Tape A CADV or a $0.0002 incremental credit if an increase of at
least 0.175% of Tape A CADV because this would encourage individual
MPIDs or mnemonics of a member organization to send orders that provide
liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of
liquidity, which benefits all market participants, and promoting price
discovery and transparency. Since the proposed Step Up Tier 5 would be
new with a step up requirement, no member organization's MPID or
mnemonic currently qualifies for the proposed pricing tier. As
previously noted, without a view of member organization activity on
other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether the proposed rule change would result in any member
organization's MPID or mnemonic qualifying for the tier. The Exchange
believes the proposed credit is reasonable as it would provide an
additional incentive for member organization's MPID or mnemonic to
direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added
levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the higher credit, thereby
contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange.
Incremental SLP Step Up Tier
    The Exchange believes that providing an additional way to qualify
for the Incremental SLP Step Up Tier is reasonable because it would
encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange and because members and
member organizations benefit from the substantial amounts of liquidity
that are present on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed
change to adopt an alternate baseline benchmark for the Incremental SLP
Step Up Tier is reasonable because it provides existing SLPs (including
SLPs that are also DMMs) with added incentive to bring additional order
flow to a public market. In particular, the Exchange believes that
making a third alternate baseline benchmark available to SLPs would
provide SLPs with an increased opportunity to qualify for the
incremental credit, and would continue to provide an incentive for SLPs
to add liquidity to the Exchange, to the benefit of the investing
public and all market participants.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
New Step UP Tier 5 Adding Credit
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Step Up Tier 5 is equitable
because the magnitude of the additional credit is less than the current
Step Up Tier 2 credit in Tape A 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 and price discovery. Since the proposed Step Up
Tier 5 would be new and includes a step up Adding ADV requirement, no
member organization's MPID or mnemonic currently qualifies for it. As
noted, without a view of member organization activity on other
exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in any member
organization's MPID or mnemonic qualifying for the tier. The Exchange
believes the proposed credit is reasonable as it would provide an
additional incentive for member organization's MPID or mnemonic to
direct their order flow to the Exchange and provide meaningful added
levels of liquidity in order to qualify for the credit, thereby
contributing to depth and market quality on the Exchange. The proposal
neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular
category of market participant. All member organization's MPID or
mnemonic that provide liquidity could be eligible to qualify for the
credit proposed in Step Up Tier 5 if they increase their Adding ADV
over

their own baseline of order flow and the member organization meets the
1.0% Adding ADV of Tape CADV requirement. The Exchange believes that
offering a step up credit for providing liquidity if the step up
requirements for Tape A securities are met will continue to attract
order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby providing additional
price improvement opportunities on the Exchange and benefiting
investors generally. As to those market participants that do not
presently qualify for the adding liquidity credits, the proposal will
not adversely impact their existing pricing or their ability to qualify
for other credits provided by the Exchange.
Incremental SLP Step Up Tier
    The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an alternative way for
member organizations to qualify for the Incremental SLP Step Up Tier
equitably allocates its fees among its market participants. The
Exchange is not proposing to adjust the amount of the Incremental SLP
Step Up Tier, which will remain at the current level for all market
participants. Rather, by providing an additional alternative way for
member organizations to qualify for the adding credit, the proposal
would continue to encourage member organizations to send orders that
provide liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust
levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants, and
promoting price discovery and transparency. The proposed changes would
also encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national
securities exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency
and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations
from the substantial amounts of liquidity that are present on the
Exchange. The proposed changes would also encourage the submission of
additional orders that add liquidity, thus providing price improving
liquidity to market participants and increasing the quality of order
execution on the Exchange's market, which would benefit all market
participants. Moreover, the proposed changes are equitable because they
would apply equally to all qualifying SLPs that submit orders to the
NYSE and add liquidity to the Exchange.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
New Step Up Tier 5 Adding Credit
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide
an additional per share step up credit, as the proposed credit would be
provided on an equal basis to all member organizations and their MPIDs
or mnemonics that add liquidity by meeting the new proposed Step Up
Tier 5's requirements and would equally encourage all member
organizations and their MPIDs or mnemonics to provide additional
displayed liquidity on the Exchange. As noted, the Exchange believes
that the proposed credit would provide an incentive for member
organizations and their MPIDs or mnemonics to send additional liquidity
to the Exchange in order to qualify for the additional credits. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume. Finally, the
submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for member
organizations and their MPIDs or mnemonics in that they could choose
whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of
its activity in this regard.
Incremental SLP Step Up Tier
    The Exchange believes its proposal to offer an alternative way for
member organizations to qualify for the Incremental SLP Step Up Tier is
not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal would be provided on
an equal basis to all member organizations that add liquidity by
meeting the new proposed alternative requirements, who would all be
eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no member
organization already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged
by this allocation of fees. The proposal neither targets nor will it
have a disparate impact on any particular category of market
participant. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because
the qualification criteria would be applied to all similarly situated
member organizations, who would all be eligible for the same credit on
an equal basis. Finally, as noted, the Exchange believes the proposal
would provide an incentive for member organizations to continue to send
orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, to the benefit of all
market participants.
    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 member organizations. 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\ Regulation NMS, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed changes are designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed changes would continue to incentivize market
participants to direct displayed order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange by providing
more trading opportunities and encourages member organizations to send
orders, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which
benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The current credits
would be available to all similarly-situated market participants, and,
as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition among market participants on the Exchange. As noted, the
proposal would apply to all similarly situated member organizations on
the same and equal terms, who would benefit from the changes on the
same basis. Accordingly, the proposed change would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange.
    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. 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.

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-11 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-NYSE-2021-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-11 and should be submitted on
or before March 12, 2021.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03340 Filed 2-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67747]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0104]

Central Florida Rail Corridor's Request for Positive Train
Control Safety Plan Approval and System Certification

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on October
26, 2022, Central Florida Rail Corridor (CFRC) submitted its Positive
Train Control Safety Plan (PTCSP), Version 4.1, dated October 21, 2022,
to FRA's Secure Information Repository. CFRC asks FRA to approve its
updated PTCSP and certify CFRC's Interoperable Electronic Train
Management System (I-ETMS) as a mixed PTC system.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by January 9, 2023 before
taking final action on the PTCSP. FRA may consider comments received
after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying
implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2011-0104. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its PTCSP, CFRC asserts that the I-ETMS
it is implementing is a mixed PTC system as defined in Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 236.1015(e). The PTCSP describes CFRC's I-
ETMS implementation and the associated I-ETMS safety processes, safety
analyses, and test, validation, and verification processes used during
the development of I-ETMS. The PTCSP also contains CFRC's operational
and support requirements and procedures.
    CFRC's PTCSP is available for review online at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FRA-2011-0104). Interested parties
are invited to comment on the PTCSP by submitting written comments or
data. During its review of the PTCSP, FRA will consider any comments or
data submitted. See 49 CFR 236.1011(e). However, FRA may elect not to
respond to any particular comment and, under 49 CFR 236.1009(d)(3), FRA
maintains the authority to approve or disapprove the PTCSP at its sole
discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-24394 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8424-8425]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6066-039]

McCallum Enterprises I, Limited Partnership; Notice of
Application for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
and Protests

    Take notice that the following amendment application has been filed
with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No: P-6066-039.
    c. Date Filed: June 25, 2021.
    d. Applicants: McCallum Enterprises I, Limited Partnership and
Shelton Canal Company (licensees).
    e. Name of Projects: Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Locations: The project is located on the Housatonic River in New
Haven and Fairfield counties, Connecticut.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joseph W. Szarmach, Jr., Managing
Partner, McCallum Enterprises I, Limited Partnership, 2874 Main Street,
Stratford, CT 06614; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> and email
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Marybeth Gay,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: March 6, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-6066-039. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensees propose to amend the
license to remove the Derby Development from the project description,
and to revise the project boundary to remove the Derby powerhouse,
Derby canal, and tailrace. The canal gatehouse serves as a water

retaining structure and contributes to the ability to maintain the
impoundment and would, therefore, remain within the project boundary.
Due to non-project oil contamination, the licensees previously ceased
operation at the Derby Development, in cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA would permanently fill
and abandon in place the water passage system associated with the
hydroelectric facilities, and the licensees have removed the turbine to
permit the EPA's access and remediation activities. The removal of the
non-operational facility would result in a decrease in authorized
capacity from 8.5 megawatts (MW) to 7.8 MW.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: February 3, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02750 Filed 2-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25795-25796]
[FR Doc No: E9-12443]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59961; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt IM-2830-1 (``Breakpoint'' Sales) in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook

May 21, 2009.
    On March 26, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ Notice of the proposal was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 20, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 59754 (Apr. 13, 2009), 74 FR 18007
(Apr. 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\4\ FINRA proposed to adopt NASD IM-
2830-1 (``Breakpoint'' Sales), renumbered as FINRA Rule 2342, into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with the minor changes discussed below.
NASD IM-2830-1 prohibits sales of mutual fund shares in amounts below a
``breakpoint'' if such sales are made ``so as to share in the higher
sales charges.'' In the context of mutual fund sales, a ``breakpoint''
is that point at which the sales charge is reduced for quantity
purchases of fund shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The application of the standard in NASD IM-2830-1 depends on the
facts and circumstances of particular transactions to determine whether
a member executed a transaction for the purpose of earning a higher
sales charge. In 1998, NASD IM-2830-1 was amended to address the use of
modern portfolio investment strategies that utilize many different
mutual funds with varying investment objectives.\5\ The amendments
specify more precisely those facts and circumstances that FINRA will
consider when examining whether trades that miss breakpoints, but are
made pursuant to bona fide asset allocation programs, may have violated
NASD IM-2830-1. In making such determinations, the rule provides that
FINRA will consider, among other things, whether a member has retained
records that demonstrate that the trade was executed in accordance with
a bona fide asset allocation program that the member offers to its
customers which is designed to meet their diversification needs and
investment goals, and under which the member discloses to its customers
that they may not qualify for breakpoint reductions that are otherwise
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40659 (Nov. 10,
1998), 63 FR 64136 (Nov. 18, 1998) (Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Mutual Fund Breakpoint Sales).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Breakpoint issues have been of concern to the regulatory community.
On December 23, 2002, FINRA issued Special Notice to Members 02-85,
which reminded firms of their obligation to apply correctly breakpoint
discounts to front-end sales load mutual fund transactions.\6\ In 2003,
the staffs of FINRA, the SEC, and the NYSE conducted examinations of
broker-dealers to assess their ability to deliver breakpoint discounts
and memorialized the findings of those examinations in a joint
report.\7\ Concurrently, FINRA staff and industry members formed a
joint task force to consider issues regarding breakpoints. The joint
task force issued a report in July 2003 containing recommendations for
the industry to facilitate the accurate delivery of breakpoint
discounts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NASD Special Notice to Members 02-85, NASD Requires
Immediate Member Firm Action Regarding Mutual Fund Purchases and
Breakpoint Schedules (December 2002).
    \7\ See Joint SEC/NASD/NYSE Report of Examinations of Broker/
Dealers Regarding Discounts on Front-End Sales Charges on Mutual
Funds (March 2003), available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Issues/Breakpoints/P006438.
    \8\ See Report of the Joint NASD/Industry Task Force on
Breakpoints (July 2003), available at http://www.finra.org/Industry/Issues/Breakpoints/P006422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposed to adopt NASD IM-2830-1 as FINRA Rule 2342, stating
it believes this rule continues to be an important tool in regulating
members' sales of mutual fund shares to ensure that they are not sold
in dollar amounts just below breakpoints so as to share in higher sales
charges. FINRA proposed to eliminate references to ``just and equitable
principles of trade'' and make other minor changes to the text to
reflect that it would be a stand-alone rule, rather than Interpretive
Material, and to eliminate certain redundant text that is inconsistent
with a rules-based format.
    FINRA stated that it will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval.

II. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA
rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\10\ The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change will continue to
provide FINRA with an important tool in regulating members' sales of
mutual fund shares, consistent with the goals of protecting investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \10\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-018) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12443 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32887-32889]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0324; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-008-AD;
Amendment 39-17060; AD 2012-10-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Burkhart GROB Luft- und Raumfahrt GmbH
Powered Sailplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Burkhart GROB Luft- und Raumfahrt GmbH Models GROB G 109 and GROB G
109B powered sailplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive
corrosion on the nose plate in the vertical stabilizer, which could
cause the vertical stabilizer nose plate to fail. We are issuing this
AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 9, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Grob
Aircraft AG, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies,
Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8268 998139; fax: +49 (0) 8268 998200;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.grob-aircraft.eu/. You may review copies of the

referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2012 (77
FR 16968). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences have been reported of finding heavily corroded nose
plates, part number (P/N) 109-2160.01, in the vertical stabiliser of
some Grob G 109 powered sailplanes.
    The investigation results concluded that the affected aeroplanes
were based and operated near the seaside and therefore exposed to a
salty environment, causing the excessive corrosion.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the vertical stabilizer nose plate, which functions as a
horizontal stabiliser fitting, to support limit loads and consequent
loss of control of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections and, depending on findings, replacement of the nose
plate.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 16968, March 23,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the 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 (77 FR 16968, March 23, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 16968, March 23, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 59 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $424 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $55,106, or $934 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $243, for a cost of
$1,263 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 the NPRM (77 FR 16968, March 23,
2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD:

2012-10-11 Burkhart GROB Luft- und Raumfahrt GmbH: Amendment 39-
17060; Docket No. FAA-2012-0324; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-008-
AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 9,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Burkhart GROB Luft- und Raumfahrt GmbH Models
GROB G 109 and GROB G 109B powered sailplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55, Stabilizer.

(e) Reason

    This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive
corrosion on the nose plate in the vertical stabilizer. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and flaking on the
nose

plate, which could cause the vertical stabilizer nose plate to fail
and result in loss of control of the sailplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 3 months after July 9, 2012 (the effective date of
this AD):
    (i) Inspect, from the top, the front and rear side of the nose
plate, part number (P/N) 109-2160.01, in the vertical stabilizer for
corrosion and flaking following Part A of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB817-58, dated
November 24, 2011. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not
to exceed 12 months.
    (ii) Install an access panel on the left side of the vertical
stabilizer following Grob Aircraft Repair Instruction Doc. No. RI
817-010/1, issue date December 20, 2011, as specified in Grob
Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB 817-060, dated November 24, 2011.
    (iii) Through the access panel installed as required in
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, inspect, from below, the nose
plate, P/N 109-2160.01, for corrosion and flaking following Part B
of the Accomplishment Instructions in Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. MSB817-58, dated November 24, 2011. Repetitively thereafter
inspect at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
    (2) If any corrosion or flaking is found on the nose plate, P/N
109-2160.01, during any inspection required in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
or (f)(1)(iii) of this AD, replace P/N 109-2160.01 with a
serviceable part. Do the replacement following Grob Aircraft Repair
Instruction Doc. No. RI 817-009, issue date November 17, 2011, as
specified in Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB817-58, dated
November 24, 2011. After replacement, continue with the repetitive
inspections required in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(iii) of this
AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2012-0027, dated February 14, 2012; Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. MSB817-58 and Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB 817-060,
both dated November 24, 2011; Grob Aircraft Repair Instruction Doc.
No. RI 817-009, issue date November 17, 2011; and Grob Aircraft
Repair Instruction Doc. No. RI 817-010/1, issue date December 20,
2011, for related information.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1)You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information on July 9, 2012:
    (i) Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB817-58, dated November
24, 2011;
    (ii) Grob Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB 817-060, dated
November 24, 2011;
    (iii) Grob Aircraft Repair Instruction Doc. No. RI 817-009,
issue date November 17, 2011; and
    (iv) Grob Aircraft Repair Instruction Doc. No. RI 817-010/1,
issue date December 20, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Grob
Aircraft AG, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies,
Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8268 998139; fax: +49 (0) 8268 998200;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.grob-aircraft.eu/.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 16, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12409 Filed 6-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


fluctuate from month to month based on the uncertainty of predicting
how many connections and ports may be purchased from month to month as
Members and non-Members are free to add and drop connections and ports
at any time based on their own business decisions.'' \93\ Do commenters
believe a single month provides a reasonable basis for a revenue
projection? If not, why not? Should the Exchange provide a range of
profit margins that it believes are reasonably possible, and the
reasons therefor? The Exchange also provided its baseline by analyzing
March 2022.\94\ Do commenters believe that March 2022 is an appropriate
month for a baseline? What are commenters' views on the Exchange
providing a combined profit margin for both 10Gb ULL connectivity and
Limited Service MEI Ports, rather than separate margins for each?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See id.
    \92\ See id.
    \93\ See id.
    \94\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reasonableness. The Exchange states that its proposed fees are
``reasonable because they will permit recovery of the Exchange's costs
in providing access services to supply 10Gb ULL connectivity and
Limited Service MEI Ports and will not result in the Exchange
generating a supra-competitive profit.'' \95\ The Exchange offers
several justifications for why its estimated profit margin (which is
blended and not discussed separately for each service) is not a supra-
competitive profit, including: (a) When it launched operations in 2008,
it chose to forgo revenue by offering certain products at lower rates
than other options exchanges to attract order flow; (b) the Exchange
has been successful in controlling its costs; (c) a profit margin
should not be judged alone based on its size, but on whether the
ultimate fee reflects the value of the services provided, and (d) the
Exchange's proposed fees remain similar to or less than fees charged
for access provided by other options exchanges with similar market
share. Do commenters agree that these factors are relevant to
assessment of whether the fees are reasonable for each service? Should
such an assessment include consideration of any factors other than
costs; and if so, what factors should be considered, and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Periodic Reevaluation. The Exchange has stated that it will
conduct a review of the cost-based fees subject to this proposal one
year after the date of the proposal, and annually thereafter.\96\ In
light of the impact that the number of connections and ports purchased
has on profit margins, and the potential for costs to decrease (or
increase) over time, what are commenters' views on the need for
exchanges to commit to reevaluate, on an ongoing and periodic basis,
their cost-based fees to ensure that the fees stay in line with their
stated profitability projections and do not become unreasonable over
time, for example, by failing to adjust for efficiency gains, cost
increases or decreases, and changes in amounts purchased? How formal
should that process be, how often should that reevaluation occur, and
what metrics and thresholds should be considered? How soon after a new
fee change is implemented should an exchange assess whether its revenue
and/or cost estimates were accurate and at what threshold should an
exchange commit to file a fee change if its estimates were inaccurate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Tiered Structure for Additional Limited Service MEI Ports. The
Exchange states that the proposed tiered fee structure is equitably
allocated among users of the network connectivity alternatives, because
users of Limited Service MEI Ports ``consume the most bandwidth and
resources of the network.'' \97\ The Exchange states that users of the
``maximum amount of Limited Service MEI Ports'' account for
approximately greater than 99% of message traffic over the network,
while users of ``fewer Limited Service MEI Ports'' account for
approximately less than 1% of message traffic over the network.\98\
Specifically, the Exchange states that Market Makers who utilize 1-2,
3-4, or 7 or more Limited Service MEI ports submit an average of
312,274,040 quotes per day, 774,859,930 quotes per day, and
1,198,621,664 quotes per day, respectively, for the month of April
2022.\99\ According to the Exchange, these billions of messages per day
consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the
overall network connectivity expense for storage and network transport
capabilities.\100\ Given this difference in network utilization rate,
the Exchange believes that its tiered structure is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.\101\ Do commenters believe
that the fees for each tier (including the intermediary tiers), as well
as the fee differences between the tiers, are supported by the
Exchange's assertions? If not, is there an alternative basis on which
increased demand by a market-making firm on the Exchange's resources
would justify a tiered fee structure for additional Limited Service MEI
Ports?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See id.
    \98\ See id.
    \99\ See id.
    \100\ See id.
    \101\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \102\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\103\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\104\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \103\ See id.
    \104\ See id.
    \105\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(rejecting the Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations
without sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in

support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may
wish to submit about the proposed rule change. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO.
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249,
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by June 7, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 21,
2022.
    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 No. SR-MIAX-2022-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2022-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2022-20 and should be submitted on or
before June 7, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 21,
2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\107\ that File No. SR-MIAX-2022-20 be, and hereby is, temporarily
suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10507 Filed 5-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P